Mr. Braiman's Homework Blog

To my 10th Graders from Fall 2009...

2011-06-14T22:55:00.000-04:00

Good luck on the English Regents.

A fitting message for the start of the new school year.

2010-09-02T22:47:00.000-04:00

Brought to you by The Simpsons. Enjoy.

http://www.clayloomis.com/Sounds/simp250b.wav

Good Luck on Regents Exams

2010-06-15T22:15:00.002-04:00

... although knowledge and skill will probably help more.

Ray Kinsella's Farm - For Sale

2010-05-13T16:58:00.000-04:00

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5186685

J.D. Salinger, 1919-2010

2010-01-28T14:16:00.002-05:00

J.D. Salinger, author of The Catcher in the Rye and a main character in the novel Shoeless Joe by W.P. Kinsella, has died at the age of 91.

Will check back later with thoughts. A sad day today, indeed.

UPDATE: A wonderful, brilliant obituary from the satirical website The Onion.

Inherit the Wind

2010-01-08T21:33:00.000-05:00

Comments are now open (moderated) for questions about Inherit the Wind. Post questions here and I will try to answer them when I can find the time.

All comments are moderated, meaning I have to read and approve them before they appear on the site. If there are any inappropriate comments, I will shut them down.

Final Exam Download

2009-12-22T12:18:00.003-05:00

Click on the following links to download and print the instructions for the final exam, which include the Critical Lens.

Periods 1 and 5 (.pdf) will write the final essay as an exam in class on Friday, January 8, 2010.

Periods 3, 4 and 8 (.pdf) will write the essay on their own and submit it on January 8, 2010.

Essays cannot and will not be accepted under any circumstances after 3:30 p.m. on January 8, 2010.

Some Notes on the Essays

2009-12-21T10:30:00.006-05:00

A few things I'm noticing about the essays so far:

Sentence construction. Most of us still can't seem to form a coherent sentence. In fact, one of the reasons it is taking me so long to mark these essays is that in nearly all of them, I have to mark up and correct every single sentence. I can't get from one line to the next without having to make multiple corrections and notations. I'm not exaggerating; across the board, there are very few sentences in any of these essays that don't require a correction or markup of some kind.

The Catcher in the Rye. Many of the essays have very little to say about the novel. You need to bear in mind that the main purpose of the essay is to analyze the book. If you only have a few sentences about it, present its characters and events out of context (e.g., by assuming the reader of your essay is already familiar with it), discuss only one aspect of it (and do so briefly and without context), you can't really expect to get a passing score. Your discussion of the book needs to show that you read it, understood it, and remember it well enough, as a whole, to discuss it intelligently in an essay.

Others mention a great many ideas from the text but not in any particular order or with any particular focus or clarity of purpose. Some ideas are left undeveloped or unexplained. Others mention isolated, insignificant incidents and characters as if they are profoundly important to the novel as a whole, e.g., Holden's encounter with the nuns. Some people's discussions only covered the events of one chapter, as if that was all they had read. One person even spent several sentences, for some unexplained reason, on the character "Eddie," (i.e., Eddie Birdsell, a college student Holden once met at a party) who never appears in the novel and whom Holden only tells us about once. Even I didn't remember who he was.

In addition, I still see the title in "quotes" rather than underlined, I still see errors in transcribing the title (e.g., "A Catcher in the Rye," "Catcher in the Rye," "The Catcher and the Rye," etc., which are completely inexcusable, as are capitalization errors in both the title and the author's name (e.g., "J.d. salinger").

Missing or invalid thesis statement. I still can't understand why so many essays lack thesis statements. Some of the thesis statements are indirect or improperly constructed. Others are a little too book-specific to be a valid thesis statement for a critical lens essay. The fact that we did only one book (except the Honors class) might have thrown some of you off, but anything specific about The Catcher in the Rye should have been in your discussion. The thesis statement needs to be a statement that this book does something that all literature tends to do, not that any particular thing happens, or any particular character appears, in this particular book.

Misuse/non-use of literary terms. Still too many discussions of the book without any analysis of literary elements. Still too many literary terms mentioned but not explained correctly or developed properly. Still too many "The literary devices used in this novel are _____." sentences. Still too many misused literary terms; this time, in particular, flashback. There are no flashbacks in The Catcher in the Rye. Not every reference in a story to past events is a flashback. A narrator telling us about past events is NOT a flashback.

"Fake" and "phony." Why on earth do so many of you insist in your essays that "Holden thinks adults are 'fake' or 'phony'", or "Holden refers to adults as 'fake' and 'phony'", when the only word he ever uses is "phony" and he never, ever, ever, not once, NOT ONE TIME in the entire 214-page novel, uses the word "fake"?

I'll add more as I think of them; keep checking back. Final exam is January 8.

Critical Lens Discussion Paragraph Samples

2009-12-14T09:24:00.006-05:00

You should work on your discussion paragraphs tonight and tomorrow. Final essays are on Wednesday. Dancers who will not be in class on Wednesday must submit the essay on Tuesday, December 15.

Here are the discussion paragraphs we produced in class today, with the relevant thesis statement in [brackets] above each one.

[The novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, and A Night to Remember, a non-fiction novel by Walter Lord, both reveal that the character of an individual is only meaningful when compared to that of others.]

A Night to Remember is a detailed, minute-by-minute narrative account of the sinking of the R.M.S. Titanic on April 14-15, 1912. Author Walter Lord undertook meticulous, painstaking research, which included interviews with over 60 survivors, to create the definitive account of the early 20th century’s defining moment. The result is a story with no main character, other than the Titanic herself. Lord instead provides the reader with a series of brief character vignettes, showing us a few moments of one person’s experience in one part of the ship, then moving to someone else, somewhere else, at the same time. For example, in the first chapter, Lord describes the ship’s collision with the iceberg from the perspective of the lookouts who saw the ice, passengers who barely felt the impact, and crew members below who saw the sea pouring into the cargo holds and boiler rooms. The purpose is to differentiate the reactions, thoughts and behaviors of many different people; passengers, officers and crew, men and women, rich and poor, who experienced this grave and unprecedented crisis on board the doomed ocean liner. As the sinking progresses, the tension in the novel increases as passengers and crew are faced with increasingly difficult, indeed impossible, choices. Wives had to decide whether to take to the lifeboats or stay with their husbands. Crew members had to decide whether to do their duty or save themselves. Notably, White Star Line chairman J. Bruce Ismay had to decide how to take responsibility for the disaster, by going down with the ship or saving himself so he could explain to the world; he chose the latter. By revealing the experiences of so many people, all of whom were caught up in this dramatic, life-and-death situation, Lord gives the reader the broadest possible spectrum of human behavior and potential by showing widely disparate reactions to the crisis. From the cowardice and arrogance of Ismay, to the workaday devotion of the crew members, to the bravery and service of the officers and the ship’s band, and the enduring love of Mr. and Mrs. Isidor Straus and other couples, we see anything and everything that people may be capable of. Many of their actions are heroic, others are deplorable, others merely intriguing. They are all laced with irony, however, as Lord clearly expects his reader to know that the Titanic will eventually sink. Yet Lord’s matter-of-fact journalistic tone calls upon the reader to draw his own conclusions. It also entices us to wonder what we would have done if we were on the Titanic that fateful night. By showing how so many people reacted and behaved in the face of history’s worst maritime disaster, Walter Lord clearly shows us that we can only understand people, and ourselves, by revealing how they, and we, respond to a crisis.

-----

[The novel The Natural by Bernard Malamud and the classic epic poem The Odyssey by Homer both reveal that true heroism lies in a person’s willingness to confront the forces allayed against him, where those forces are more powerful than he.]

The Natural is a story about a star baseball player, Roy Hobbs, who comes out of nowhere as a “middle-aged rookie” and attempts to lead his team, the New York Knights, from last place to the National League pennant. The story is based on the tale of Sir Perceval the Grail Knight, from medieval mythology, as well as primitive nature myths. Malamud attempts to place these myths into a modern context, using a sports star as his “hero.” However, Roy Hobbs is no hero. He is shallow, vain, selfish, and interested only in the wealth, women and fame that come with being a professional athlete. He feels entitled to these things, and never shows any awareness of or appreciation for his responsibilities as a hero. This characterization reveals Malamud’s cynicism about post-World War II America and its worship of celebrity. The author’s tone shows contempt for all of his characters, including his “hero,” as there are very few “good” people in the story. Hobbs is surrounded by bad actors: the slimy sportswriter Max Mercy, the greedy team owner Judge Banner, the crooked gambler Gus Sands, and the psychotic, gold-digging vixen Memo Paris. All of these people appear to offer Hobbs the things he desires most; fame, fortune, and sex. However, Hobbs fails to realize that these temptations are evil, and are preventing him from realizing his full potential. His actions often frustrate the reader, as Hobbs continually makes the wrong choices even though the right ones, such as separating himself from people like these, seem obvious to everyone but him. He pursues the dangerous and unstable Memo Paris despite meeting a much more suitable mate, the kindly, wise, but somewhat homely Iris Lemon. By the time Hobbs realizes his true destiny, and thinks unselfishly for the first time in his life, it is too late. He strikes out in his final at bat, and loses everything. He failed in his quest to become a true hero, because he was both unwilling and unable to confront, or even recognize, the forces allayed against him. Malamud seems to suggest that there are no true heroes anymore; that unlike the Knights of the Round Table and the great mythic heroes of yore, modern men cannot overcome their own selfishness and vanity, nor the external forces that drive them.

-----

[The novels Lord of the Flies by William Golding and 1984 by George Orwell both reveal that mankind’s worst tendencies will often triumph over its best.]

William Golding’s allegorical novel Lord of the Flies is about a group of British schoolboys stranded on an uninhabited island who attempt, and fail, to build a civilization for themselves. Despite their initial good intentions, the boys eventually succumb to the forces of fear, aggression, and savage brutality, destroying the island and losing their humanity in the process. Golding’s tale is an attempt to understand man’s inhumanity to man by placing his characters in a situation where they have no initial conflicts among them, and must rely only on human nature to survive. Each of his main characters represents a different element of the human psyche. Ralph, the leader, represents the ego, or conscience. He is practical, fair-minded, decent, and courageous. His friend and confidant Piggy, an asthmatic fat boy with glasses, represents the “superego,” or intellect. His profound smarts and inner strength are belied by his physical limitations. Jack, a choirboy who fancies himself a “hunter,” represents the “id,” man’s more base, animalistic instincts. He finds himself in conflict with Ralph over leadership and priorities. While Ralph’s focus is on survival and rescue, Jack seems to want nothing other than to hunt and “have fun.” That, and the boys’ irrational but ever-growing fear of an unseen and undefined “beastie,” leads to a split of the group into two factions. Jack manages to seduce most of the boys into joining him, with promises of food, fun, no shared responsibility, and protection from the “beastie.” The story grows darker as one boy is accidentally killed, and then Piggy is murdered by one of Jack’s minions, leaving Ralph alone to face the evil that Jack and the other boys have come to represent. In the end, they decide to hunt Ralph down and kill him, and are stopped only by the sudden intervention of the “rescue” by the adult world. All of the boys except Ralph lost either their humanity or their lives, as a result not of any outside forces, but their own essential nature. The “beastie,” or “Lord of the Flies” (a loose translation of a Hebrew word for the devil) becomes the central symbol in Golding’s allegory. It represents all of mankind’s worst tendencies; fear, hatred, aggression, violence, savagery. By having these innocent boys turn savage despite starting off with no conflicts and no shared history, Golding suggests that there is, in the end, very little hope for mankind.

-----

[The novels 1984 by George Orwell and A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens both take place during dark periods in history, which provide enlightenment for their main characters.]

Written in the late 1940s, George Orwell’s 1984 is a dystopian vision of the future. In this grim, bleak and frightening future world, there are only three giant nation-states; the one where the story takes place, Oceania, is perpetually at war with either one of the other two. Its population is kept under constant surveillance by the government, which is ostensibly ruled by an unseen and god-like figurehead called “Big Brother.” The oppressive totalitarian regime, and “the Party” that controls it, keeps its citizens in a constant state of poverty, deprivation, and fear, but simultaneously nationalistic and loyal. It does this, in part, by engaging in massive disinformation, telling the public how well things are going even if they are not, and actually changing history by altering the historical record. Citizens are expected to believe the misinformation even when their own senses, memory and experience tell them it is a lie. Orwell calls this “doublethink;” the ability to hold two contradictory notions in the mind and believe both. Orwell also introduces the concept of “thoughtcrime,” i.e., the failure of doublethink. The main character in 1984, Winston Smith, works for the Party’s “Ministry of Truth,” whose function is actually the precise opposite of its name. One day he realizes that he is, in fact, falsifying history, and decides that he does not much like the time and place in which he lives. This realization leads Winston to question everything he has ever known, and find out as much as he can about how the Party really works, who or what “Big Brother” really is, and what has really happened in the last 40 years of history. In the process, he enjoys feeling and thinking freely for the first time in his life, and has a passionate love affair with a like-minded young woman named Julia. Unfortunately, Winston also realizes that this enlightenment is in and of itself a thoughtcrime. Just when he believes he has learned all that he needs to learn, he is captured by the dreaded Thought Police, and tortured until he can accept that 2+2=5, and learns to “love Big Brother.” In the end, there is nothing of Winston, or his enlightenment, left. The ending of the novel leaves the reader with very little hope, which is clearly Orwell’s intent. It is somewhat ironic that the darkness of his time both enabled Winston to see, and yet ultimately blinded and destroyed him.

Critical Lens Essay Introduction Samples

2009-12-11T12:37:00.005-05:00

You should write your Introduction over the weekend (and start working on your Discussion as well). I'm not going to collect it, but you really should get started.

Here are the Introduction samples we produced in class today:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote, “A person is a person through other persons.” The character of an individual is meaningless by itself. Although we place a great deal of value on our own uniqueness, it really doesn’t mean anything if we can’t compare it to the character and personality of other people. Whether we are interested in moral goodness, professional talent, or behavioral quirks, our evaluation of anyone’s character, including our own, depends greatly on how we compare to the rest of the world. The same is true for our understanding and evaluation of characters in literature. When we read a novel or a play, we need to compare literary characters to each other, to people we know in the real world, and to ourselves. Only then can we truly understand who they are, and who we are. The novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, and A Night to Remember, a non-fiction novel by Walter Lord, both reveal that the character of an individual is only meaningful when compared to that of others.

Norman Mailer wrote, “For what does it mean to be a hero? It requires you to be prepared to deal with forces larger than yourself.” Heroes are typically people who risk their well-being or their lives for the benefit of others. A person is only heroic, however, if he is willing to take on risks and face challenges that ordinary people would avoid. We think of heroes as being greater than ordinary people, even though they live and walk among us. The difference is, they run toward danger where others would run away from it. What we admire so much about heroes is their willingness to take risks and face challenges that may be grave, or even deadly. This is true for literary and mythic heroes as well as the ones we find in real life. The novel The Natural by Bernard Malamud and the classic epic poem The Odyssey by Homer both reveal that true heroism lies in a person’s willingness to confront the forces allayed against him, where those forces are more powerful than he.

Walker Percy wrote, “In this world goodness is destined to be defeated.” All people are supposed and expected to be as kind, decent and virtuous as they can be. Many of us hope to live in a world free of evil; free of crime, free of war, free of avarice. However, despite 6,000 years’ worth of effort, mankind has failed to eradicate its most cruel, selfish and destructive tendencies. If history teaches us anything, it is that the forces of good are very often the victim of larger, more powerful, and more pervasive evil forces. Many of our greatest stories reveal the futility of the struggle of good against evil. The novels Lord of the Flies by William Golding and 1984 by George Orwell both reveal that mankind’s worst tendencies will often triumph over its best.

Bernadette Devlin wrote, “To gain that which is worth having, it may be necessary to lose everything else.” We all hope to gain something tomorrow that we don’t have today, something we truly value; more, perhaps, than other things. However, we are often reluctant to make the sacrifices necessary to make our dreams come true. Too many people fail to realize that in order to achieve what we most want to achieve, we must be willing to give things up. Very often, we must sacrifice that which we value or even love, in order to fulfill our greatest desires. We therefore must choose what we value most, and what we are willing to lose. Characters in literature often find themselves faced with such choices. The novel 1984 by George Orwell and the non-fiction novel A Night to Remember by Walter Lord both present characters faced with difficult, if not impossible, choices requiring grave risk and great sacrifice.

Theodore Roethke wrote, “In a dark time, the eye begins to see…” There have been dark times in history, and there are dark times in people’s lives. War, poverty, economic crisis, disease and political upheaval have plunged whole nations into misery and suffering for years, or even decades, at a time. Even when history has been kind to most, and times have been relatively serene, there are still individuals whose lives represent a constant struggle against adversity. Whether times are tough for one person or for a whole population, the difficulties we face enlighten us. They make us aware of important truths and unpleasant realities, from which happy times often shield us. Many of our greatest stories take place during dark times; others reveal the struggle and enlightenment that come from individual difficulties. The novels 1984 by George Orwell and A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens both take place during dark periods in history, which provide enlightenment for their main characters.

Homework #41

2009-12-09T09:18:00.003-05:00

Rewrite the following sentences in actual proper English.

Period 1:
In the essay there was room cleaning vs. archaeology and the discovery of learning.

Period 3:
Signifying that her love for her daughter no matter what stage of life or how much they transition it can only grow, espically when she states it can be "weighed and reweighed."

Period 4:
He say's to explain how in the beginning he was cleaning out her room, then it became more personal when he see's items she kept since she was a baby.

Period 5:
Which sets the tone and the mood in the read to express how the parent are feeling in the reading about their child.

Period 8:
This goes back to the title, with the word “excavating,” because it is usually used to find important artifacts.

Homework #40 Answer

2009-12-08T11:03:00.004-05:00

During exam periods, cookie sales in the school cafeteria are high. Cookies are selling well in the cafeteria today, so it must be exam time.

Which one of the following is logically most similar to the argument above?

A. Logical thinking is enough to ensure success in the computer programming field. But none of my friends are computer programmers, so they must all be illogical.

(A) is incorrect because it does not match the pattern of the logic in the stimulus. The pattern of the logic in the stimulus is as follows: When the first condition (X) is true, then the second condition (Y) is true; since Y is true, X must also be true. This is not exactly sound logic; in fact, we've seen something like this before in Homework #23 (Answer). Although this is not strictly a cause-and-effect relationship, it is still an attempt to reverse the logic whose result is not always necessarily true. The fact that Y happens whenever X happens does not mean that any time Y happens, X must also have happened.

The logic in choice (A) is flawed, but not for the same reason. The pattern here is that if X is true, then Y is true; since Y is false, X must be false.

B. Someone who thinks logically can become a computer programmer. David thinks very logically, so he can become an excellent computer programmer.

(B) is incorrect because there is no flaw in the logic here. This is a simple attempt to state a general rule and then cite a specific example that follows the rule. If X = Y, and David = X, then David = Y.

C. Skill in thinking logically is one guarantee of success at computer programming; a degree from a prestigious technical school like M.I.T. is another.

(C) is incorrect because there is really no logical sequence in this statement at all. This is a simple statement of fact. X = Z and Y also = Z. Nothing wrong with that, and it certainly doesn't match the stimulus.

D. A computer programmer must be able to think logically. Rob is a very logical person, so he must be a computer programmer.

(D) is correct. Like the stimulus, this tells us that when X is true, Y is true; since Y is true, X must also be true. This choice exhibits the same logical flaw as the stimulus.

E. Computer programmers are always able to solve logic problems. None of the students can solve logic problems, so none of them are computer programmers.

(E) is incorrect because it's perfectly logical. If X can always do Y, and none of the students can do Y, then none of the students can be X.

Homework #39 Answer

2009-12-07T16:17:00.003-05:00

The form of the Petrarchan sonnet provides the reader with a more exquisite literary experience than does the form of the detective novel. We know this is true because the best critics, the ones with delicate sensibilities, always prefer the Petrarchan sonnet to the detective novel. And we know that these critics are the best critics, because they prefer the Petrarchan sonnet.

The flaw in the logic expressed in the argument above is that the author

A. fails to provide the names of specific critics who prefer the Petrarchan sonnet over the detective novel.

(A) is incorrect because the logic would still be flawed even if the author provided the names of the critics. The author is claiming that one literary form is better than another because the "best critics" prefer the former, but then uses that very preference as proof that those critics are actually the "best." The argument doubles back on itself; replacing "the best critics" with a series of names would not change the operation of the statements.

B. assumes that the point he wishes to establish is necessarily true.

(B) is correct. The author is basically using his conclusion as evidence to prove that the evidence supporting the conclusion is valid. In other words, the author is saying that X is better than Y, and we know that because the "best critics" prefer X. But he goes on to state that their preference for X is what makes them the "best critics." This makes no sense.

Here's an example of the same argument, in a different context: Republicans are better for America than Democrats. I know that because the best news outlet in America, Fox News, supports Republicans. And we know that Fox news is the best news outlet in America, because it supports Republicans.

The fallacy lies in the assumption that the point the author is trying to establish is necessarily true; what is claimed as support is actually an assumption, but the author does not seem to understand that. One cannot claim that X is true because Y is true, then turn around and defend Y by citing X. A proves B, and B proves A; this is circular logic and flawed reasoning.

C. generalizes from one small, specific example to a broad, general rule.

(C) is incorrect because the author does no such thing. He provides no "small, specific example" of anything; everything cited is a broad category.

D. does not provide a valid counter-argument that would dispute his own conclusion.

(D) is incorrect because while it is true that the author does not provide a valid counter-argument, that is not his job, and more importantly, that is not the flaw in his logic.

E. fails to provide examples of any exceptions to the rule he proposes.

(E) is incorrect for the same reason as (D); the author is not obligated to provide examples of exceptions to the rule he proposes. Again, it is true that he does not do so, but his "failure" to do so does not constitute a flaw in his logic. The flaw in his logic is that he assumes his premise is true using circular logic; A proves B, and B proves A.

Homework #40

2009-12-07T08:25:00.004-05:00

Homework #38 Answer

2009-12-04T09:20:00.008-05:00

Samuel Taylor Coleridge must have found the inspiration for "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" in Hakluyt's 1600 edition of the real-life sea narrative, The Southern Voyage of John Davis. Although Coleridge did not mention the 200-year-old work in his notes, both "Mariner" and Southern Voyage prominently feature a tale of misfortune resulting from the killing of a bird. They also both feature a rotting ship drifting out of control in the tropics, and a scene of a dying man cursing his fate. Furthermore, William Wordsworth, Coleridge's good friend and occasional collaborator, had an interest in books about actual historical sea voyages, and may have owned a copy of Davis' story.

The author of the passage makes his point primarily by

A. drawing an analogy between literature and seafaring.

(A) is incorrect because the author draws no such analogy. Although both works of literature he cites involve seafaring to some extent, the author is comparing the two works to each other, in order to suggest that the later work was influenced by the earlier work.

B. reinterpreting a classic literary work.

(B) is incorrect because the author makes no attempt to reinterpret either of the literary works mentioned. In other words, he does not challenge the conventional interpretation of either work, nor any particular scholar's interpretation of either work. He is merely claiming that one must be based on the other, a claim which does not require any reinterpretation.

C. paralleling an author's work with the events of the author's life.

(C) is incorrect because the author draws no such parallel; nothing about Coleridge's life is mentioned in the stimulus. The only "parallel" being drawn is between some elements of Coleridge's story and the Southern Voyage story that appear to be similar.

D. supporting a claim with circumstantial evidence.

(D) is correct. The author claims that Coleridge's poem must be based on the Southern Voyage story published in 1600, and bases that claim on two things: (1) a few broad similarities between the two stories, and (2) the possibility that one of Coleridge's contemporaries possessed a copy of the text in question. None of the facts cited by the author can definitively prove that Coleridge based "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" on The Southern Voyage of John Davis; in fact they might just be mere coincidences. They do tend to support the author's conclusion, but they require additional, more direct facts in order to constitute actual proof. Therefore they qualify as circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence.

E. disputing a controversial claim of literary influence.

(E) is incorrect because the author is not "disputing" anything, and no "controversial claim" is presented in the stimulus. If anything, the author's own claim might be controversial, but that depends on the scholarly consensus which is outside the scope of the argument.

Homework #39

2009-12-04T08:37:00.004-05:00

The form of the Petrarchan sonnet provides the reader with a more exquisite literary experience than does the form of the detective novel. We know this is true because the best critics, the ones with delicate sensibilities, always prefer the Petrarchan sonnet to the detective novel. And we know that these critics are the best critics, because they prefer the Petrarchan sonnet.

The flaw in the logic expressed in the argument above is that the author

A. fails to provide the names of specific critics who prefer the Petrarchan sonnet over the detective novel.

B. assumes that the point he wishes to establish is necessarily true.

C. generalizes from one small, specific example to a broad, general rule.

D. does not provide a valid counter-argument that would dispute his own conclusion.

E. fails to provide examples of any exceptions to the rule he proposes.

Homework #37 Answer

2009-12-03T09:27:00.004-05:00

A student at any college within the CUNY system is permitted and encouraged to take classes at other CUNY schools when they complement the offerings of his home institution. For example, a student enrolled at Brooklyn College can take a class at Queens College, Hunter College, College of Staten Island, etc. Please note, however, that the final determination of credits earned and requirements satisfied remains with the student's own academic dean at his own school, even if the other school where he takes the class has a different policy. In other words, a student enrolled at Brooklyn College who takes a class at Queens College has to meet the requirements of Brooklyn College, even if Queens College's requirements are different. The rules governing a student's course of study depend solely on the institution in which he is officially enrolled, not on his physical presence in any given classroom.

The above policy statement implies that

A. any student admitted to a CUNY school will be allowed to officially enroll at another CUNY school.

(A) is incorrect because nothing in the stimulus implies a relationship between where one is admitted and where one is enrolled. It is important to understand what these words mean, and the differences between them, in order to successfully answer this question. Application comes first, then admittance (acceptance), then enrollment (commitment to attend and payment of tuition), then classes taken and credits earned, then if requirements are met, graduation. The argument here concerns any student who is already enrolled in, and expects to graduate from, one particular CUNY college. The stimulus tells us that a student enrolled in one school may take classes at another, not that a student admitted to one school (an event which comes before enrollment) may enroll at another. It doesn't tell us anything about how one proceeds from admission to enrollment; that process is outside the scope of the argument.

B. a college may exclude a student enrolled in the CUNY system from its non-academic programs.

(B) is incorrect because it is also not implied by the stimulus. "Non-academic programs" are beyond the scope of the argument, as is whether or not any college may exclude any CUNY student from anything. The fact that CUNY colleges allow students from other CUNY colleges to take academic classes does not imply that they do NOT allow such students to participate in non-academic activities.

C. each college's Admissions Office is the sole judge of who is eligible to attend its classes.

(C) is incorrect because the argument is not concerned with who gets to decide whether or not a student may attend classes at any particular college. In fact, the stimulus makes the blanket statement that students are "permitted and encouraged" to take classes outside of their home school within the CUNY system. The argument here is concerned with whether or not any classes taken at other colleges will count toward the student's degree at his own college.

D. students are not required to follow rules of conduct established by colleges at which they are not enrolled.

(D) is incorrect because it's absurd; there's no reason, in the stimulus or otherwise, to think anyone is not subject to the rules of conduct established by any institution in which he becomes involved, or even on whose property he sets foot. The argument is that students may take classes at other colleges but that their own college gets to decide whether to count those classes toward the student's degree. This does not, by any stretch, mean that the student would not be subject to the other college's rules and regulations. In any event, rules of conduct are not the same thing as academic requirements, and are therefore outside the scope of the argument, so (D) cannot be correct.

E. a student's academic dean at his own school can refuse to accept course credits for classes the student has taken at a different CUNY school.

(E) is correct because it's the only logical choice; it is the most obvious implication of the stated policy. The stimulus clearly and unequivocally states that a student's own academic dean at his own school gets to decide whether or not a class taken at another college will count toward the student's degree requirements. If it's the dean's decision, then the dean can either accept the credits or refuse to accept the credits.

Homework #38

2009-12-03T08:26:00.010-05:00

Homework #36 Answer

2009-12-02T11:13:00.016-05:00

For exactly ten years, it has been against the law to bungee-jump in New York State. All members of the Rubberband Club must live in New York State, and must have bungee-jumped at least once in the last two years. The Rubberband Club is currently taking applications for new members.

Which one of the following necessarily follows from the information presented above?

A. Every current member of the Rubberband Club has bungee-jumped outside of New York.

(A) is incorrect, because any current member could have bungee-jumped in New York, albeit illegally, without ever bungee-jumping anywhere else. The fact that something is against the law does not mean that it cannot and will not ever happen. The Club rule requires a member to have bungee-jumped at least once within the past two years; it does not require him to have done so legally.

The stimulus seems to set forth three specific conditions that may be important:

- when the member (current or prospective) bungee-jumped;
- where the member bungee-jumped; and
- whether he did so legally.

For a question like this, it is constructive to read the answer choice as a rule and then ask if it is possible that there is an exception. For choice (A), is it possible that there is a current member of the club who has never bungee-jumped outside of New York? The fact that every member must have bungee-jumped at least once within the last two years means that if they did so in New York, it was illegal. There could be members of the club who have only bungee-jumped in New York; whether they did so legally is outside the scope of the statement in choice (A).

B. No one currently applying for membership in the Rubberband Club has legally bungee-jumped in New York.

Is it possible that someone currently applying for membership has legally bungee-jumped in New York? Yes; (B) is incorrect because it is possible for a prospective member to have bungee-jumped legally in New York more than ten years ago, and then bungee-jumped again within the last two years, either illegally in New York or legally elsewhere.

C. The current members of the Rubberband Club have bungee-jumped illegally at least once.

Is it possible that no current member of the Club has ever bungee-jumped illegally? Yes; (C) is incorrect because they could all have done all of their recent bungee-jumping outside New York, and any of their New York bungee-jumping before it was outlawed. The club rules require the members to live in New York, not to bungee-jump there.

D. Current members of the Rubberband Club who have never bungee-jumped outside of New York have broken the law in New York.

Is it possible that any current member who has never bungee-jumped outside of New York has not broken the law in New York? No; (D) is correct. Anyone who is a current member of the Rubberband Club has to have bungee-jumped at least once in the past two years. Any member who has never bungee-jumped outside of New York has to have bungee-jumped in New York. Therefore, since they must have bungee-jumped within the past two years, and can only have done so in New York where it has been illegal throughout that time, they must have broken the law.

E. The Rubberband Club does not include any members who have bungee-jumped legally in New York.

Is it possible that there are members of the Rubberband Club who have bungee-jumped legally in New York? Yes; (E) is incorrect because the Club could include members who bungee-jumped in New York before it was outlawed, and bungee-jumped elsewhere within the past two years.

Homework #37

2009-12-02T08:24:00.007-05:00

Homework #35 Answer

2009-12-01T11:33:00.005-05:00

Derek won this year's school science fair and is a star on both the school's football and basketball teams. Outside of school, he runs his own successful business and is an accomplished musician. Obviously, Derek is good at everything he does. Therefore, he will undoubtedly make an excellent Student Government President if elected.

The argument above is suspect, because it overlooks the possibility that

A. Derek participates only in those activities at which he knows he will excel.

(A) is correct. This was a difficult question; it's important to pay attention to precisely what the argument is claiming, which in this case is that Derek will make an excellent S.G. President because he is "good at everything he does." The stimulus names five specific things that Derek is "good at" (science, football, basketball, business, music) to support the claim that he is "good at everything he does." But if it is true that Derek only participates in those activities at which he knows he will excel, then he might not be "good at" anything other than the five activities specified. Therefore (A) is the best answer.

B. being Student Government President requires different skills than those needed to become an accomplished musician.

(B) is incorrect because it draws a distinction with only one of the five specified activities that Derek is "good at." If the choice had named and distinguished all five, instead of just this one, it would have been a better answer, and would have essentially implied the same thing that (A) implies, i.e., being "good at" one thing does not necessarily make someone "good at" another. But by itself, the distinction between leadership ability and musical talent is insignificant, especially when success at academics, sports and business are much better indicators of leadership potential.

C. school, sports, music and business are the only activities in which Derek is engaged.

(C) is incorrect because this possibility does not undermine the argument. (C) is different from (A) because if these are the only activities that Derek does, that nevertheless does not preclude the possibility that he might make a very good S.G. President, based on the claim that he is "good at" all of the named activities. (A) adds the element of intent, i.e., Derek only does these activities because he knows he is "good at" them, which opens up the possibility, if not the likelihood, that he would not be "good at" anything else.

D. there may be other students who are just as qualified as Derek to be Student Government President.

(D) is incorrect because it also does not undermine the argument. The fact that others may be just as qualified does not diminish Derek's qualifications. The argument makes no attempt to compare Derek to anyone else; it only claims that Derek would make an excellent S.G. President, not that he is the best choice among those available. (D) is a non-sequitur; put simply, it doesn't matter.

E. Derek has no time in his schedule to devote to Student Government.

(E) is incorrect because, like (D), it raises a separate and unrelated issue; another non-sequitur. The argument is claiming that he would make an excellent President, which is still a valid argument whether or not he would actually be willing or able to put in the time required to serve the office if he is elected.

Homework #36

2009-12-01T08:32:00.004-05:00

Homework #34 Answer

2009-12-01T08:02:00.004-05:00

Until 1990, the results of the Reading Level Assessment Test (RLAT) given in middle schools of Brooklyn and Queens indicated that the reading ability of students in the two boroughs was nearly identical. Since 1990, however, the average score on the test has been markedly higher in Brooklyn than in Queens. The Superintendent of the Brooklyn schools believes that his students did better on the test because all Brooklyn middle schools reinstated minimum reading level requirements. Under these requirements, all students in Brooklyn reading below grade level are required to attend after-school reading workshops once a week.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?

A. The average score on the RLAT in Brooklyn has increased the minimum reading level requirement.

(A) is incorrect because it states the inverse of the argument, essentially saying that the effect leads to the cause, which is not logical. The argument is that the reinstatement of the minimum reading level requirement (i.e., higher standards) in Brooklyn led to higher RLAT scores in that borough. Generally, where a result is attributable to a specific cause, it does not follow that the cause is attributable to the result. A causes B; B does not cause A.

B. There was a minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point before 1990.

(B) is incorrect because there is not enough information in the stimulus by which we could make any firm statements about what was happening in Queens, either before or after 1990. It is important to remember that the argument, attributing the rise in test scores in Brooklyn to higher standards in Brooklyn, is something the Brooklyn Superintendent believes. If he is wrong, and the result is attributable to something else, then the other facts in the stimulus tell us nothing about what's been happening in Queens. Even if he is right, this would not be a logical inference; the standards were reinstated in Brooklyn, which means they existed at one point and then were eliminated before being put back into place, but we don't know whether they ever existed in Queens. The fact that the Queens scores tracked the Brooklyn scores before Brooklyn reinstated the standards suggests they probably didn't, but again, we don't know enough to say for sure.

C. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Brooklyn middle schools at some point before 1990.

(C) is correct. The Brooklyn Superintendent believes that test scores have risen since 1990 because the minimum reading level requirements were reinstated. That means they were in place at some point, then were eliminated at some later point before being put back into place. If the scores have risen since 1990, and the Superintendent attributes that rise to the reinstatement of the standards, then it must be true that at some point before 1990, there were no such standards in place. Otherwise the rise in scores since 1990 cannot reasonably be attributed to the reinstatement of the standards.

D. There was no minimum reading level requirement in the Queens middle schools at some point after 1990.

(D) is incorrect for the same reason as (B). Because the stimulus characterizes the argument as something the Brooklyn Superintendent believes, the possibility that he is wrong eliminates choice (D) as a logical inference. It could be true, but it doesn't have to be true. Again, if the Superintendent is wrong, if the rise in scores is actually attributable to something other than the reinstatement of the standards, then the remaining facts in the stimulus allow no inferences to be drawn about anything happening in Queens. Had the stimulus made the argument directly, then this might have been a logical inference. If the Superintendent is right, then this is probably true. But it didn't, and we don't know.

E. Since 1990, the RLAT score of every student in Brooklyn has been higher than the RLAT score of every student in Queens.

(E) is incorrect because it's ridiculous. Just because the average score of one group is higher than the other doesn't mean that every member of the first group scored higher than every member of the second. You can receive a higher grade than another student on one notebook check and still end up with a lower overall average than that person.

Homework #35

2009-11-30T10:02:00.005-05:00

Homework #33 Answer

2009-11-24T10:27:00.005-05:00

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument in Homework #32?

A. Most people who use slang expressions in conversation understand what they mean.

(A) is incorrect because it does not weaken the argument so much as offer a possible reason why the author's point may not matter to the speaker even if it is valid. It's a non sequitur, really. The author's argument is that the use of slang expressions degrades the language, i.e., reduces its overall quality. The example he cites, which "translates" the slang into English, suggests an acknowledgment on his part that people typically know what slang expressions mean. The author is therefore concerned with the quality of the language, not with the ability of those who speak it to understand each other in conversation. Even if it's true that people can communicate using slang expressions, it is no less arguable that such expressions degrade and devalue the language. Therefore (A) is not as good an answer as (E).

B. Many slang expressions that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time, as the people who used them were assimilated into larger groups that used different expressions.

(B) is incorrect because it does not undermine the argument in any way. Whether any particular slang expressions endure or not, or whether slang expressions in general tend to pass in and out of usage, they still have the capacity to degrade the language, as the author suggests.

C. Whether a new word or phrase is widely used in the media and entertainment is an important factor in whether the word or phrase will become common slang.

(C) is incorrect because the author is not concerned with where slang expressions come from, or in what venues they tend to be used. Regardless of where they originate or how they are disseminated, they still have the capacity to degrade the language.

D. Slang expressions are more likely to be invented by children and adolescents than by any other segment of the population.

(D) is incorrect for the same reason as (C). Indeed, if it is true that children and adolescents tend to invent slang terms, that makes the author's argument even stronger, since those young people will not grow up with an adequate knowledge of or appreciation for the English language and thereby degrade it even further.

E. Languages of the highest quality often evolve over time out of a collection of slang expressions woven into the formal dialect of a given people.

(E) is correct. Unlike (A), which is a non sequitur, (E) directly addresses the author's argument that slang usage degrades the English language by suggesting that such expressions actually increase the quality of the language over the long term. The author argues that slang expressions make the language less formal and less precise, whereas (E) states that such expressions eventually develop into formal speech and result in high-quality languages. Therefore (E) is the best answer.

Homework #34

2009-11-24T10:14:00.004-05:00

Homework #32 Answer

2009-11-23T12:03:00.003-05:00

The increasing use of colloquialisms (slang expressions) is degrading the English language. A phrase such as "she was like, 'No way!', you know?" - a meaningless collection of English words just a few decades ago - is commonly understood today to mean "she was doubtful." No language can have such imprecise word usage without a corresponding decrease in the quality of expression.

The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?

A. Colloqualisms (slang expressions) always evolve out of a meaningless collection of words.

(A) is incorrect because the source of colloquial or slang expressions is not germane to the argument; the argument concerns their effect on the language, not where they come from or the reasons why they are used. The example provided in the stimulus arose out of "a meaningless collection of words," but even if they come from other sources as well, the claim that they degrade the language is still viable.

B. The slang expressions in common use today make the English language imprecise on a large scale.

(B) is correct. The argument makes a very broad statement with far-reaching implications, based on what appears to be a very small sample. The only way the argument holds water is if this is a large-scale problem; that slang usage is so pervasive that it degrades the language itself, not just the people who speak or write using slang.

C. The Russian, French and German languages do not contain as many colloquialisms as English.

(C) is incorrect because the author makes no attempt to compare English to any other language, let alone these three specific ones, nor indeed to other languages in general. The quantity of colloquialisms in other languages has no bearing on the effect colloquial usage has on English.

D. The English language would not lose any of its quality or precision if there were no alternative, informal way to say "she was doubtful."

(D) is incorrect because the author implies that widespread and insidious use of slang expressions is degrading the language, not this example alone. Even if one could argue that the language would not be degraded if there were no colloquialisms at all, the author is certainly not assuming that this one expression alone degrades the language all by itself, or that the problem could be fixed by limiting this expression to those three words.

E. The widespread use of slang expressions is the worst thing that could possibly happen to the English language.

(E) is incorrect because it's an opinion, and an opinion cannot be an underlying assumption.

Homework #33

2009-11-23T10:15:00.004-05:00

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument in Homework #32?

A. Most people who use slang expressions in conversation understand what they mean.

B. Many slang expressions that appeared in earlier forms of the English language disappeared over time, as the people who used them were assimilated into larger groups that used different expressions.

C. Whether a new word or phrase is widely used in the media and entertainment is an important factor in whether the word or phrase will become common slang.

D. Slang expressions are more likely to be invented by children and adolescents than by any other segment of the population.

E. Languages of the highest quality often evolve over time out of a collection of slang expressions woven into the formal dialect of a given people.

Homework #31 Answer

2009-11-21T18:00:00.007-05:00

Albert: The CEO's proposal to conduct free career seminars for high school students doesn't make much sense. Teenagers do not use our products, since they don't have enough extra spending money to buy luxury items.

Bill: I disagree. Anything we do to make the company look better can lead to us making more money in the long run. The good publicity we'll get from having these seminars will make us look very good to the general public. Good publicity, it has been proven, increases sales significantly.

Albert and Bill disagree about whether

A. the business has suffered from recent bad publicity.

(A) is incorrect. Neither Albert nor Bill expressed this idea. The key to a question like this is to read the answer choice, and ask whether one of the speakers would say yes while the other would say no; whether one speaker would agree with the statement and the other would disagree. Here, the stimulus doesn't indicate whether either Albert or Bill would agree with this statement. Bill thinks the seminars will generate good publicity, but nothing he says indicates that the company's recent publicity has been bad. Albert does not mention publicity at all.

B. the CEO's plan to offer career seminars to high school students makes financial sense for the company.

(B) is correct. Bill would agree with this statement, while Albert would disagree. Albert thinks that the company would be wasting its time providing seminars for teenagers who don't buy the company's products; Bill thinks the positive publicity will generate long-term business. Therefore Albert does not think the seminars make financial sense, and Bill does.

C. the publicity they get from the seminars will be good.

(C) is incorrect because while Bill would agree with it, we cannot say that Albert would disagree with it based on what he says in the stimulus. Albert doesn't seem to have an opinion one way or another about whether the publicity generated by the seminars will be good or bad.

D. the advice given in the seminars will enable teenagers to buy the company's products.

(D) is incorrect because while Albert might disagree with it, Bill doesn't have an opinion one way or another. Albert is concerned that teenagers don't buy the company's products, so the seminars would be a waste of time and money; this implies that he doesn't think the seminars will get the teenagers to buy the products. Bill likes the seminar idea not because he thinks teenagers will buy the products after the seminars, but that the seminars will be beneficial to the company in other ways over the long term.

E. teenagers would be more likely to buy the company's products if the company improved its public image.

(E) is incorrect because neither Albert nor Bill expresses an opinion on either the need for the company to "improve" its public image, or whether doing so would make teenagers more likely to buy the company's products. Bill might agree with this, although the benefits he foresees are more generalized, but it does not appear that Albert would disagree with it. Albert's statement does not indicate or imply any connection between the company's public image and the likelihood that teenagers will buy its products.

Homework #32

2009-11-20T12:10:00.004-05:00

Homework #30 Answer

2009-11-19T10:33:00.005-05:00

Jacques Dessens, the food critic who writes for the magazine Dining Today, was wrong in his review of Fabri's restaurant. He criticized the cold strawberry soup because it contained cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes. But Fabri's roasted chicken dish contains cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes, and Mr. Dessens awarded that dish the highest rating possible. Clearly, such blatant inconsistency proves that Mr. Dessens is not qualified to be a food critic.

The argument above is based upon which of the following assumptions?

A. Some of Fabri's customers don't like the roasted chicken dish.

(A) is incorrect because whether it is true or not it does not affect the author's argument. Remember, any choice whose subject is "some," "most," "many" or "few" of something, and not "all" or "none," is probably not the correct answer to an assumption question. The same is true if the verb is qualified by "sometimes," "often," "rarely" or "seldom," as opposed to "always" or "never." Even if every single one of Fabri's customers likes the roasted chicken dish, it is still possible that Mr. Dessens' criticism of the strawberry soup was unfair.

B. The evaluation of the cold strawberry soup should not suffer just because Mr. Dessens does not like some of the ingredients.

(B) is incorrect because it's an opinion, and therefore cannot be an underlying assumption. It's also an idiotic statement; this is exactly what food critics do, so if Mr. Dessens does not like the soup or its ingredients then of course it will receive a poor evaluation, as it should. That is the whole point of his job. This choice reminds me of a student who once said to me, in response to my criticism of then-President George W. Bush's language skills (or lack thereof), in these exact words: "Just because he doesn't speak well doesn't mean he's a bad speaker." Actually, I replied, it means precisely that.

C. As flavor-enhancing ingredients, cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes are better for main courses than for appetizers.

(C) is also incorrect because it's also an opinion, and also tends to support the substance of Mr. Dessens' review and refute the author's criticism thereof. The argument is that Mr. Dessens' review of the strawberry soup was "wrong," because it was "blatant[ly] inconsisten[t]" for him to dislike the strawberry soup but like the roasted chicken when they both contained the same flavor-enhancing ingredients. If those ingredients are better for main courses than for appetizers, then his review was not inconsistent at all. Many students chose this answer because it supports Mr. Dessens' review; however, the substance of his review is NOT the argument being made by the stimulus, and further, this is an assumption question.

D. Cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes enhance the flavor of the roasted chicken and the cold strawberry soup in essentially the same way.

(D) is correct. The argument is that Mr. Dessens' review of the restaurant contained a "blatant inconsistency," i.e., a criticism of the strawberry soup based on its containing cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes, alongside praise for the roasted chicken dish containing the same ingredients. The argument assumes that these ingredients have the same essential effect on the flavor of each dish in question. If the ingredients effect the flavors of different dishes in different ways, then there is nothing inconsistent or "wrong" about Mr. Dessens' review.

E. Cilantro and sun-dried tomatoes are best used in chicken dishes that are not roasted.

(E) is incorrect because it's an opinion, and does not affect the validity of the argument whether it is true or false. The argument is not concerned with the appropriateness of using these ingredients in any particular dish, let alone one outside the scope of the argument.

Homework #31

2009-11-19T10:26:00.005-05:00

Homework #29 Answer

2009-11-18T12:56:00.006-05:00

Six months ago, a blight destroyed the cattle population in the town of Cebra, destroying the town's beef supply. Since that time, the only meat available to eat in Cebra has been poultry, fish, lamb and pork.

If the above statements are true, which one of the following must also be true on the basis of those statements?

A. Villagers in the town of Cebra consume only beef raised by Cebra farmers.

(A) is incorrect, even though it could be true. The key is that the argument concerns the availability of beef, not the consumption of beef. Whether Cebra villagers are partial to Cebra beef, i.e., whether they are willing to eat non-Cebra beef, has no bearing on its availability. It still could be available even if they're not willing to eat it. Therefore this does not HAVE to be true.

B. Cebra villagers like lamb and poultry better than beef.

(B) is incorrect because it also does not have to be true (or false) based on the argument presented in the stimulus. As with (A), the villagers' dietary preferences and culinary tastes have no bearing on the availability of any particular food product. Whether they like it or not has no bearing on whether they can or can't get it.

C. The town of Cebra has not imported any beef from other towns in the past six months.

(C) is correct. At issue is the availability of beef in the wake of the blight. The argument claims that no beef has been available in Cebra for six months, but this can only be true if they had no other source of beef besides their own cattle that were destroyed in the blight. If they imported beef from elsewhere, then it WAS available.

D. Most of the residents of Cebra are meat eaters.

(D) is incorrect because it doesn't matter whether it's true or not. In addition, the fact that the condition is attributed to "most" Cebra residents, instead of "all" or "none," indicates that it likely cannot be the correct answer to an assumption question.

E. Before the blight occurred, Cebra villagers ate more beef than any other type of meat.

(E) is incorrect because it doesn't have to be true. Based on the way the facts are presented in the stimulus it seems likely, but what Cebra residents tended to eat before the blight is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument is concerned only with the availability of beef AFTER the blight.

Homework #30

2009-11-18T10:04:00.003-05:00

Homework #28 Answer

2009-11-18T08:16:00.005-05:00

The Brooklyn Museum has a totem pole that was too tall to be stored in the museum's temperature-controlled storage vault. Fortunately, the totem pole can now be stored in the temperature-controlled vault thanks to the efforts of restoration artists, who have discovered a way to separate the pole into two parts for storage purposes. The artists' method allows the totem pole to be reassembled later without any noticeable change in its appearance.

The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Neither of the two separated parts of the totem pole is too tall to fit into the vault.

(A) is correct. The argument is concerned primarily with the totem pole being too tall to fit into the vault, a problem which could be corrected by separating the pole into two or more segments. However, if those segments are themselves too tall to fit into the vault, or even if one of them is, then separating the pole into segments won't solve the problem.

B. The totem pole can be separated into two equal-sized parts.

(B) is incorrect because the segments do not have to be equal-sized in order to fit into the vault. For example, if the vault ceiling is 10 feet high and the pole is 12 feet high, a pair of 6-foot segments would fit, but so would an 8-foot segment and a 4-foot segment.

C. The procedure for separating the two parts of the totem pole will not cost more than it would cost to replace the totem pole if it deteriorated.

(C) is incorrect because it is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument is only concerned with how to fit the totem pole into the vault. Whether the procedure for separating the pole into segments is cost-effective is a separate question. Even if the procedure does cost more than the totem pole is worth, it is still possible that separating the pole into segments will allow it to fit into the vault.

D. Placing the two parts of the totem pole into the vault would not require them to remove other key artifacts from the vault.

(D) is also incorrect for the same reason as (C); it is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument is not concerned for the well-being of other key artifacts, and again, whether removing such artifacts from the vault is worthwhile in the interests of preserving the totem pole is a separate question. Even if they do have to remove other artifacts from the vault, it is still possible that separating the pole into segments will allow it to fit into the vault.

E. The vault can be set to the proper temperature required to preserve totem pole.

(E) is incorrect because the argument is concerned only with the size of the vault, not any other characteristics. While this is an important consideration, the stimulus is proposing a solution to the height problem, nothing more. Even if the vault can't be set to the proper temperature, it is still possible that separating the pole into segments will allow it to fit into the vault.

Homework #29

2009-11-17T14:22:00.002-05:00

Homework #27 Answer

2009-11-12T09:50:00.006-05:00

Chocolate is made from the beans of the cacao tree, which grows in tropical regions of the New World (i.e., North, Central and South America). When chocolate arrived in Europe around 1500, it was only consumed as a hot drink. In the mid-1800s, however, the Swiss invented a way to make chocolate into solid candy that people could eat. Today, millions more pounds of chocolate are produced for eating than for drinking.

Which of the following can be inferred from the statements above?

A. Today, the cacao tree cannot be grown anywhere else in the world besides the tropical regions of the Americas.

(A) is incorrect because there is nothing in the stimulus suggesting that the cacao tree ONLY grows in the American tropics. Even if it only grew there at the time it was discovered, it could be cultivated elsewhere today. Nothing in the stimulus suggests otherwise.

B. When chocolate was introduced to Europe, it was most commonly used in solid form.

(B) is incorrect because it directly contradicts the stimulus' claim that chocolate was only used as a hot drink in Europe until the 1800s.

C. The number of pounds of chocolate used to make solid candy today is greater than the number of pounds used to make chocolate drinks during the 1800s.

(C) is incorrect because there is not enough information in the stimulus to support this claim. We are told that more chocolate is made into solid candy than drinks TODAY, but we have no idea exactly how many pounds are made into candy today, nor do we know exactly how many pounds were made into drinks during the 1800s. No comparisons are made between the quantity of chocolate used for specific purposes then, versus now.

D. Chocolate was not eaten as solid candy in the New World during the 1500s.

(D) is correct because the stimulus suggests that solid chocolate candy was not invented until the 1800s by the Swiss. It can therefore be inferred that the North, Central and South American Indians of the 1500s did not know how to make it.

E. If the Swiss had not invented a way to make solid chocolate candy, chocolate would not have become as popular as it is today.

(E) is incorrect because the stimulus does not attribute chocolate's popularity to the invention of solid chocolate candy. Even though the candy is more popular today than the drinks, the drinks were made and consumed by Europeans for 300 years before the candy was invented. There is no reason to believe that chocolate drinks would not be just as popular today as the candy had the latter never been invented.

Homework #28

2009-11-12T08:36:00.003-05:00

Homework #26 Answer

2009-11-10T11:20:00.005-05:00

Judges in the Kingsborough Student Essay Contest disqualified Sam's entry because it broke one of the contest rules. The rules specified that students should place their name ONLY on the cover page of the essay, which the judges would not see, to make sure they judged it fairly and without bias against the individual student. Sam, however, put his name on each and every page of his essay. Nevertheless, Sam's entry should be allowed to qualify, because Sam's parents recently got divorced, and it's been very hard for him.

Which one of the following explains why this is a flawed response to the judges' decision?

A. It presents a conclusion without providing supporting evidence.

(A) is incorrect because the conclusion is supported by evidence, even though that evidence is completely irrelevant. The conclusion is that Sam's essay should be allowed to qualify; the "evidence" is that his parents recently got divorced and he is struggling with that. The reasons why Sam broke the rule are irrelevant, because the rule regarding the placement of the student's name does not take the student's reasons for doing it wrong into account. This is true for most rules. The best example is traffic violations. If you speed, or run a stop sign, it doesn't matter why you did it; you're guilty unless you can prove that you did not actually speed, or that you did not actually run the stop sign. Why you did it is of no consequence, even if you had a really good reason. You're still guilty and still have to pay the fine.

B. It treats a factor that may cause a particular outcome as the only possible cause of that outcome.

(B) is incorrect whether the "outcome" refers to Sam's mistake or the resulting disqualification. In the case of Sam's mistake, the cause is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why he wrote his name on every page of the essay. In the case of the disqualification, again it doesn't matter that there are other reasons why he could have been disqualified. The fact that he was disqualified because he wrote his name on every page is the only thing that matters.

C. It focuses on a trivial, unimportant aspect of the judges' argument.

(C) is incorrect because there is nothing trivial or unimportant about any aspect of the judges' argument. There was a rule, Sam broke the rule, and he broke it in such a way as to completely defeat the purpose of having the rule in the first place.

D. It incorrectly states the facts that formed the basis of the judges' decision.

(D) is incorrect because there is nothing in the stimulus to suggest that Sam did not actually break the rule, or that the judges are mistaken (or lying) about his name being on every page.

E. It appeals to the judges' emotions instead of addressing their reason for disqualifying the essay.

(E) is correct. The argument is an appeal for sympathy, nothing more. It suggests that the judges should ignore the fact that Sam broke the rule and admit his essay anyway because they feel sorry for him. Whether you agree with this or not, the fact remains that Sam broke the rule and defeated its purpose; there is no logical reason or rational basis for admitting his essay under these circumstances.

Homework #27

2009-11-10T10:19:00.006-05:00

Homework #25 Answer

2009-11-10T09:31:00.003-05:00

If someone puts too much pressure on the bottom shelf of a bookcase, the entire bookcase will collapse. Shelly's bookcase has collapsed. Therefore, someone must have put too much pressure on the bottom shelf.

Which one of the following criticisms best describes a weakness in the argument above?

A. It supports its conclusion with irrelevant evidence.

(A) is incorrect because the evidence, while inadequate to support the conclusion, is nonetheless relevant. The evidence here is that the bookcase collapsed, and that putting too much pressure on the bottom shelf of any bookcase will cause that bookcase to collapse. The conclusion is that the collapse of Shelly's bookcase must have happened because someone put too much pressure on the bottom shelf. The evidence is relevant because it makes the conclusion more likely to be true; if the bookcase collapsed, and too much pressure on the bottom shelf can cause it, then the collapse of the bookcase could suggest that someone put too much pressure on the bottom shelf. The problem is that the evidence does not by itself prove that the conclusion must be true.

B. It changes the meaning of the word "collapse" from "partial collapse" to "full collapse."

(B) is incorrect because the argument does not hinge on the definition of "collapse." This is a simple reverse cause-and-effect argument; it doesn't matter whether the collapse was "partial" or "full," or whether the author meant "partial" or "full" when he wrote the word "collapse." At issue is the cause of the collapse, not the extent of it.

C. It concludes that an outcome must have been caused by one particular factor, which may be only one of many possible causes of that outcome.

(C) is correct. As discussed above, the flaw in the argument is that the author has assumed the cause based only on the outcome and nothing more. This classic logical fallacy came up in Homework #23 and #24 as well. Just because X can cause Y, or has a tendency to cause Y, does not mean that if Y occurs it must (or could only) have been caused by X. Only if we know that there is no other possible cause can we assume the cause from the outcome alone.

D. It overlooks the possibility that some bookshelves have only one shelf.

(D) is incorrect because "the possibility that some bookshelves have only one shelf" does not make it more or less likely that the collapse of this particular bookcase was caused by pressure on the bottom shelf. Therefore the fact that the possibility was "overlooked" is not a weakness, because there is nothing wrong with ignoring irrelevant factors when making an argument. Indeed, ignoring irrelevancies actually strengthens the argument.

E. It draws an overly broad conclusion from small, insignificant pieces of evidence.

(E) is incorrect because the conclusion is not "overly broad;" it is in fact overly narrow, assuming only one of many possible causes for a specific outcome. Neither is the evidence (i.e., the collapse of the bookcase) "small" or "insignificant."

Homework #26

2009-11-09T08:40:00.006-05:00

Homework #24 Answer

2009-11-09T08:40:00.003-05:00

The advantages of a college education are much too precious to waste on students who are not seriously dedicated to learning and studying. Administrators should strictly enforce the idea that students must earn the privilege of enrolling in college, and then must earn the privilege of staying there. Any student who fails a course should be immediately dismissed from the university, so that a more deserving student may take his place.

Which one of the following is the best rebuttal of the argument above?

A. A student should not be expected to fulfill college requirements unless he gets to choose the courses he wants to take.

(A) is incorrect because it's an excuse that's unrelated to the author's premise. The author argues that students who fail courses should be summarily thrown out of college, because the failure indicates that they are not "seriously dedicated to learning and studying." This, of course, is a faulty assumption. However, the flaw in the argument is not that a student should get to choose his own courses, because choice of courses has no direct bearing on dedication and seriousness. This choice addresses only the author's conclusion, not the reasons behind it.

B. The university may not have made the student fully aware of the demands of its curriculum and the intensity of study required.

(B) is also incorrect because it's also an excuse that has no bearing on the student's dedication and seriousness, which are the crux of the author's argument. Like (A), it only addresses the author's conclusion, not the reasons behind it. The author's point is that students who are not dedicated and serious should not be in college; shifting the blame to a third party based on unrelated factors does not undermine the original premise.

C. To dismiss a student who fails a course is to place achievement over the student's individual right to an education.

(C) is incorrect because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. To the extent that a student has an "individual right to an education," that right is to the opportunity, not the outcome. In other words, a student has a right to be educated but does not have a right to receive high grades, or even to pass his courses. However, even if such a right does exist, it ends with secondary school; going to college is not a right. Further, like all other rights, it can be forfeited if one does not live up to one's responsibilities. Therefore there is nothing wrong with "plac[ing] achievement over the student's individual right to an education," especially in the college context. This idea is not incompatible with the author's argument, therefore (C) does not undermine it.

D. Scholarship is only one of the possible contributions that a student might make to the university community.

(D) is incorrect because it is also not incompatible with the author's argument. "Scholarship" here refers to a student's academic ability and performance, as opposed to "a scholarship" which would refer to a monetary grant of assistance based thereon. The idea that a student might contribute to a university community in non-academic ways, such as by playing football or having his family donate a building, does not undermine the author's argument about seriousness and dedication. It's a weak rebuttal.

E. A highly dedicated student may still fail a course for other reasons, which are unrelated to his dedication.

(E) is the best rebuttal to the author's argument because of the author's faulty assumption. The author assumes that if a student fails a course, it must mean that he is not serious or dedicated to his studies and should therefore be expelled, so someone who is serious and dedicated can take his place. The author fails to consider that serious, dedicated students may nonetheless fail courses for other reasons. Whether those reasons constitute mere excuses is beside the point; this choice undermines the author's flawed assumption, and is therefore the best rebuttal.

Homework #25

2009-11-04T12:47:00.002-05:00

Homework #23 Answer

2009-11-03T12:02:00.005-05:00

Children never develop strong self-esteem if they are guided by adults who criticize them. Therefore, if children are guided by adults who never criticize them, they will develop strong self-esteem.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar to the flawed pattern of reasoning used in the argument above?

This was a very difficult question. Parallel reasoning questions are probably the hardest, because you have to completely ignore the subject matter and substance of the stimulus and only consider its structure. Whether the argument in the answer choice is true, valid, believable or reasonable is entirely irrelevant. In this case, the question stem actually tells you that the argument in the stimulus is wrong because it depends on flawed reasoning, which means you already know it's not a reasonable argument. The question is not which of the following arguments seems reasonable, or likely to be correct. The question is which of the following arguments makes the same mistake of logic that the stimulus does, and is unreasonable for the same reason.

Completely ignoring the subject matter, and looking only at the structure of the argument, the stimulus is suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship where the occurrence of one event (X) causes the non-occurrence of another (Y). On other words, if X happens, Y will not happen. The flaw in the logic is the conclusion the author draws based on this relationship, i.e., the idea that if X does not happen, Y will happen, which is not logically sound. Just because X prevents Y from occurring, doesn't necessarily mean that the absence of X will cause Y to occur. Another example:

If you buy a sprinkler system, your house won't burn down. Therefore, if you don't buy a sprinkler system, your house will burn down.

This is flawed reasoning. The absence of a sprinkler system cannot by itself cause your house to burn down, nor does it guarantee by itself that your house will burn down. Of course, if your house catches fire, that's something else, but it's not part of the equation. The absence of a sprinkler system cannot cause it to catch fire, even though it might prevent you from putting that fire out. Just like in the stimulus; the absence of criticism from adults does not by itself guarantee that a child will develop high self-esteem, although it might contribute to that result.

The flawed logic can be formulated thusly: If X, then not Y; therefore, if not X, then Y.

A. Even though Hannah studies hard, she does not get good grades. Therefore, Hannah should not try to get good grades by studying hard.

(A) is incorrect because even though it is unreasonable, it is not so for the same reason as the stimulus. What's missing with respect to the stimulus is that the second sentence does not purport to guarantee that Hannah will get good grades if she does not study hard. (A) suggests not so much a cause-and-effect relationship but a method-and-goal relationship, specifically that the method has not thus far worked to achieve the goal, therefore Hannah should not continue to try this method. It's not entirely unreasonable; if a method doesn't work, try another method. In the context of this subject matter, though, it's bad advice.

B. Telephone salesmen who have bad phone manners do not sell any products. Therefore, telephone salesmen with low sales records must have bad phone manners.

(B) is also unreasonable but it's also incorrect. The flaw in the logic here is not that the non-occurrence of X guarantees the occurrence of Y. It's that X tends to cause Y, so if Y occurs, then X must be the cause. It's a simple cause-and-effect equation, simpler than the stimulus in that it merely inverts the cause and effect. Even though Y is a negative event ("...do not sell any products"), it's in the negative on both sides of the equation. The stimulus' pattern reverses the negations between X and Y (If X, then NOT Y; therefore if NOT X, then Y). This choice does not (If X, then NOT Y; therefore if NOT Y, then X).

C. Using the store's new knitting machine, the knitting store owner made twice as many sweaters yesterday as she did the day before. Therefore, if she uses the knitting machine again tomorrow, she will make twice as many sweaters as she did today.

(C) is incorrect because it also does not match the pattern of the stimulus' argument. For one thing, there are no negative events here. The statement is flawed because it assumes that because one event caused a changed outcome, a repetition of that event must cause the change (not the event itself) to occur again. The statement is absurd because the change in the outcome was attributable to a changed condition. If the new condition subsequently remains the same and does not change again, then the change in the outcome will not recur.

D. Puppies who are not used to being with people do not interact comfortably with a large group of people. Therefore, the more a puppy is used to being with people, the more comfortable he will be with a large group of people.

(D) is incorrect because it's not flawed; it's a perfectly reasonable statement.

E. People who take calcium supplements do not increase their risk of heart disease. Therefore, people who do not take calcium supplements will increase their risk of heart disease.

(E) is correct because it's the only choice that matches the pattern of the stimulus (If X, then not Y; therefore, if not X, then Y). In this case, X is the taking of calcium supplements, and Y is an increased risk of heart disease.

Homework #24

2009-11-02T14:01:00.002-05:00

Homework #22 Answer

2009-10-29T09:45:00.007-04:00

Educators are pleased with the recent rise in median SAT scores, which occurred after a decade of decline. Unfortunately, this encouraging statistic actually reflects rather poorly on our educational system. The scores have gone up because fewer students take the tests. A lot of disadvantaged students have simply given up hope of going to college, so they don't bother to take the tests (which they would need to get accepted). In other words, students who have tended to get low scores in the past have dropped out of competition entirely. The higher median scores now are the result of having only privileged, college-bound students take the test.

The author argues primarily by

A. denying the accuracy of his opponents' figures

(A) is incorrect because the author does not dispute the fact that SAT scores have recently gone up. The dispute is over what these figures mean, not what they are.

B. finding an alternative explanation for his opponents' evidence

(B) is correct. The author attributes the rise in SAT scores to the fact that fewer students take it, the ones who have been inclined to do poorly are the ones who are no longer taking it at all, and the only ones taking it are the ones who are inclined to do well. His opponents, on the other hand, seem to think that the higher scores indicate that the schools and the students' education have improved. The author therefore draws a different conclusion from the same facts.

C. refining and clarifying an existing argument

(C) is incorrect, because there's no "existing argument" for the author to refine or clarify. The author is disputing his opponents' conclusion, not updating his own position.

D. defending an argument against criticism by his opponents

(D) is incorrect because there's no indication that the author has been criticized by his opponents. The author's argument is presented as a new idea, an alternative to the standard interpretation of the results, based on conditions his opponents may not have considered.

E. suggesting that his opponents may be unfairly biased

(E) is incorrect because there is nothing in the stimulus to suggest that the author thinks his opponents' conclusion is unreasonable. Although the author may imply that his opponents neglected to consider the additional facts he proposes, he does not imply that they have done so for selfish, dishonest or emotional reasons.

Homework #23

2009-10-29T09:44:00.001-04:00

Homework #21 Answer

2009-10-27T10:25:00.003-04:00

The state legislature is considering a bill that would outlaw capital punishment. However, certain lawmakers are doing everything they can to make sure we keep using the death penalty. To those people I say, go to death row and visit the prisoners there. You'll see that even convicted killers are human beings worthy of our mercy.

Which one of the following best describes the author's method of argument?

A. She makes an appeal to her opponents' emotions.

(A) is correct. The argument is clearly an appeal to the reader's sympathy. It promotes the idea that if the reader, one of the lawmakers who favors the death penalty, actually meets a death-row prisoner, he will have sympathy for the prisoner and reflexively oppose executing him, based only on that emotion. The author does not attempt to make any logical arguments against the death penalty.

B. She argues from a general principle to a specific conclusion.

(B) is incorrect because, if anything, she does the opposite. "The state legislature is considering a bill that would outlaw capital punishment" is a statement of a specific fact, not a general principle. The second sentence is also a statement of a specific fact. The author's final statement, "even convicted killers are human beings worthy of our mercy," is a general principle. She arrives at this principle by starting with specific facts, which lead to a suggestion, which she believes would lead her opponents to agree with this principle. She does not start with a general principle, and her "conclusion," such as it is, is not specific.

C. She uses sarcasm to mock her opponents' position.

(C) is incorrect because nothing in the language of the argument suggests a sarcastic tone. There is no irony in the author's words, nor is she making fun of her opponents. She is merely suggesting they do something that might change their minds before they make a decision.

D. She attacks the way in which her opponents have presented their view.

(D) is incorrect because the stimulus does not indicate one way or another how the opponents have presented their view. Note that there is a difference between her opponents' view and how her opponents have presented their view. She may be attacking their view, but she is not attacking the way in which they have presented it.

E. She overlooks a distinction that is essential to her opponents' argument.

(E) is incorrect because neither her argument nor her opponents' appears to hinge on any "distinction."

Homework #22

2009-10-27T10:08:00.005-04:00

Homework #20 Answer

2009-10-27T08:05:00.003-04:00

Many older men and women are still victims of age stereotypes. They are denied career advancement because they are simply considered "too old" to do the job, whether that's actually true or not. This is a terrible waste of human potential. To help fix this problem, older people applying for jobs should do everything they can to seem young, competent and energetic. Once they are hired, they should not tell anyone their true age, so they can avoid being treated unfairly by co-workers.

Which one of the following, if true, is most damaging to the argument above?

A. Harmful age stereotypes can only be destroyed if capable older people reveal their true age.

(A) is correct. The argument is that older workers should combat age stereotypes and avoid discrimination by hiding their age. This statement makes the precise opposite suggestion. If it is true that harmful age stereotypes can only be destroyed if older people reveal their age, then the problem can't be solved if they hide their age.

B. Scientific studies have found certain changes in brain function to be common in people older than 65.

(B) is incorrect because it provides an excuse for age discrimination, where the argument is suggesting a way to undermine and potentially end it. Further, the argument suggests that people should hide their age by "acting young" and either lying or avoiding the question, so if it's true that older people experience changes in brain function, that's even more reason to hide their age.

C. More and more older people are already finding employment in clerical and food-service jobs.

(C) is incorrect because whether or not older people have jobs is not the issue, nor is it the issue what kinds of jobs they have. The issue is how to go about getting a job, and how to avoid age discrimination once hired. Even if this statement is true, it does not undermine the author's suggestion that older people should act young and conceal their true age.

D. There is wide popular support of laws forbidding age-based discrimination for workers between 40 and 70 years old.

(D) is incorrect because "wide popular support" of anti-discrimination laws doesn't mean much. Even if there are such laws (and there are), everyone knows that having a law against something and actually preventing it from happening are two different things. This statement, that there is "wide popular support" for such laws, is even weaker. It does not undermine the author's suggestion that older people should act young and conceal their age in order to obtain and maintain employment. Even under such laws, this is still a valid suggestion.

E. Improved nutrition prevent, or maybe even reverse, many of the physical changes that occur as people get older.

(E) is incorrect because the author is not suggesting ways for older workers to maintain their health and stave off the inevitable deterioration that comes with aging. The whole point of age discrimination is that people make assumptions about a person's ability based solely on his age, not on his actual physical or mental capacity which varies from one individual to the next. What that means is that it would not matter whether or not an older person stays physically fit, let alone how he goes about doing it.

Homework #21

2009-10-26T14:47:00.002-04:00

New Question Types for Marking Period 2

2009-10-22T09:58:00.007-04:00

In addition to the four question types we learned in the first marking period (assumption, strengthen, weaken, inference), we'll be adding two more question types for the second marking period. These types of questions are unusual, but they will appear from time to time. With examples, they are:

Parallel Reasoning - The question will ask which one of the five answer choices is most similar to the argument being made in the stimulus. In other words, the stimulus will present an argument about a particular subject matter. The answer choices will attempt to make the same type of argument, but with different subject matter. The correct choice is the one whose reasoning most closely resembles that of the stimulus.

EXAMPLE:

If the government lowers income taxes, people will spend more of their money to buy consumer goods. This will stimulate the economy and result in higher salaries, which means the government will take in more revenue even though tax rates are lower.

Which one of the following arguments most closely resembles the reasoning in the statements above?

A. If we decrease the amount of overtime our employees work, our production costs will go down and we will make more money.

B. If we make it harder to participate in the school lunch program, people will have to spend more money on food and the farms will make more money.

C. If a movie is labeled "obscene" or "dirty," more people will want to see it and the morals of the community will be corrupted more than they would be otherwise.

D. If we give employees more paid holidays, they will become more efficient on the job and our productivity will actually increase.

E. If we give our children more spending money, they will learn to manage their money better and will realize how important it is to be careful with money.

(D) is the correct answer because its reasoning most closely resembles that of the stimulus, even though it's about a completely different subject. The argument is that a proposed course of action (lowering taxes/more paid holidays for employees) will actually have the opposite result (higher government revenue/greater productivity) than one would initially expect, and would benefit the actor. To answer a question like this, you need to put the argument in the abstract and not think about the subject matter. The key is how the author makes his argument, not what he is arguing.

(A) is incorrect because it describes an expected, predictable result, not a surprising result, of the proposed action.

(B) is incorrect because it also describes a predictable result, and describes a benefit to a third party who is not involved in the original action. In both the stimulus and choice (D), the original actor is the one who benefits from the action. Don't be fooled into looking for similar subject matter (making more money), or at only one part of the argument (in this case, the result).

(C) is incorrect because the result is a detriment, not a benefit; it is also predictable and does not directly affect the original actor.

(E) is incorrect because, like (A), it describes an expected, predictable result.

-------------------

Method of Argument - These questions will directly ask how the author is making his argument, or what kind of argument he is making. In other words, you're looking for what the author is doing, not what he's saying.

EXAMPLE:

Many people have cynically suggested that a child’s intellectual ability is determined by the socioeconomic status of his family. To test this belief, infants from poor families were removed from their homes and placed in special schools, where they were taught relatively advanced subjects from the time they were only three months old. These children had an average IQ of 110 by the time they reached school age. It would seem, therefore, that it is the degree of pre-kindergarten education the child has received, not his parents’ socioeconomic level, that determines his future intelligence.

The author's method of argument is to

A. present an alternative conclusion that explains the same evidence.

B. argue that poorer children are actually smarter than privileged ones.

C. cite specific evidence that supports his own conclusion.

D. disprove statistics presented by opponents.

E. suggest that the cause-and-effect relationship is actually the opposite of what his opponents say.

(C) is the correct answer because the author starts with something "many people" "cynically" say, then presents the results of a study in order to show that those "many people" are wrong. The author's conclusion is that education, not economics, determines a child's intelligence, and the results of the study support this conclusion.

(A) is incorrect because the evidence presented by the author is not the same evidence on which the initial belief is based. It is new evidence which the author discovered himself.

(B) is incorrect because the author is not trying to distinguish poor and privileged children, nor show that one or the other is inherently "smarter." In fact, the author is doing just the opposite. More importantly, though, this would be an example of a conclusion, not a method; i.e., something the author would be saying, not doing. (Of course, it's not what the author is saying, so it's wrong on both counts.)

(D) is incorrect because as far as we know, the author's opponents have not presented any statistics at all. The fact that their belief is called "cynical" suggests that they have no facts to back it up.

(E) is incorrect because it's simply wrong. The author's opponents say that low economic status causes low intelligence; the author is not arguing that low intelligence causes low economic status. (The same applies if you substitute "high" for "low".) The author's argument is that economic status and intelligence do not correlate.

--------
The first 20 homeworks have been added together as one grade for marking period 1. Marking period 2, and the second set of homeworks, will begin with Homework #21.

Homework #19 Answer

2009-10-21T08:51:00.006-04:00

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument in Homework #18?

A. Overripe vegetables are more nutritious than underripe ones.

(A) is incorrect. Recall that the argument in Homework #18 is that frozen vegetables are more nutritious than fresh ones, because they lose less of their nutritional value between the time they are picked and the time they are eaten. The stimulus there did express some concern that fresh vegetables picked ripe would be overripe by the time they reached the consumer, but the difference between overripe and underripe vegetables is not relevant to the argument. Even if this is true, it does not undermine the author's claim.

B. Vegetables destined for freezing and those destined for the grocery store are picked at the same time.

(B) is correct. The argument hinges on a distinction between what happens to vegetables between the time they are picked and the time they are eaten. Frozen vegetables, picked ripe, lose some nutrients in the freezing process, whereas fresh vegetables, picked early, lose even more by ripening off the vine. Therefore the point at which the vegetables are picked is important; how much nutritional value they lose depends in part on when they are picked. If both categories of vegetables are picked at the same time, then it is harder to argue that frozen vegetables are "better" than fresh ones.

C. Fresh vegetables are refrigerated during transport to prevent them from spoiling.

(C) is incorrect because it does not weaken the argument. The argument is not concerned with spoilage, but with loss of nutritional value caused by either freezing or ripening off the vine. This statement does not undermine the claim that ripe vegetables lose less nutrition when frozen than unripe ones do in transit from farm to store.

D. Many people who live near farms can purchase vegetables directly from the farmers.

(D) is incorrect because where people buy vegetables is irrelevant to the author's claims about the loss of nutritional value caused by freezing versus off-the-vine ripening. This statement does not make the author's conclusion, that one method causes less nutritional loss than the other, any less likely to be correct.

E. Tests have shown that fresh vegetables taste a lot better than frozen vegetables.

(E) is incorrect because it is also irrelevant. How the vegetables taste is not the issue; the issue is how nutritious they are when they are purchased and eaten.

Homework #20

2009-10-21T08:21:00.002-04:00

Note on Assumption Questions

2009-10-20T11:20:00.004-04:00

I am seeing too many responses to assumption questions that indicate an answer choice is wrong because it is "not mentioned in the stimulus," or words to that effect, or because it "cannot be proven by the stimulus," or words to that effect. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF AN ASSUMPTION QUESTION. As we discussed at the beginning of the term, an assumption is something the author has taken for granted and therefore left out, but that is so important to the argument's reasoning and validity that the whole thing falls apart if it is not true. Wrong choices in assumption questions are wrong not because they are "not mentioned in the stimulus," or because they "can't be proven," but because the argument does not depend on them being true; i.e., the argument remains valid even if they are false.

If you want to receive full credit for an explanation, you need to pay attention to the question and explain precisely WHY each answer choice is right or wrong. If your explanation indicates that you do not understand the question, or are answering the wrong question, you will not receive the full two (2) points for the explanation.

To review:

In an assumption question, the correct choice is the one on which the argument depends; the one which, if it were not true, would cause the argument to fail.

In a strengthen or support question, the correct choice is the one which makes the author's conclusion more likely to be correct.

In a weaken, dispute, undermine or rebuttal question, the correct choice is the one which makes the author's conclusion less likely to be correct.

In an inference or conclusion question, the correct choice is the one which can be most reasonably, logically and/or reliably drawn from the statements in the stimulus.

New question types will be introduced next marking period, so be on your toes.

Homework #18 Answer

2009-10-20T09:26:00.007-04:00

It is healthier to eat frozen vegetables than fresh ones. This is not because freezing makes them more nutritious. In fact, freezing actually causes food to lose some nutrients. Still, frozen vegetables are better for you because crops are usually harvested before they are ripe. Vegetables are at their most nutritious when they are allowed to ripen in the field. However, if they are picked when they are ripe, they would go bad by the time they reached the consumer. That's why they have to be picked early, and allowed to ripen in transit. These fresh vegetables never reach their full nutritional value. On the other hand, vegetables can be picked when they are ripe and then immediately frozen. As a result, frozen vegetables are generally more nutritious than the fresh vegetables we buy at the grocery store.

The above argument is based on which one of the following assumptions?

A. Frozen food companies freeze only the most nutritious kinds of vegetables.

(A) is incorrect because the argument stands even if this is not true. The argument is that frozen vegetables are ultimately better for you than fresh ones because the frozen ones are picked ripe and retain more nutrients than the fresh ones, which are picked early and have to ripen on the truck or in the store instead of on the vine. This distinction would remain regardless of which kinds of vegetables are being frozen.

B. Vegetables lose less nutrition from freezing than they do from being picked early.

(B) is correct. The stimulus acknowledges that both freezing vegetables and picking them early cause them to lose nutrients by the time they are sold, prepared and eaten. Yet the stimulus unequivocally states that frozen vegetables are "healthier," "better for you" and "more nutritious" than fresh ones. If they both lose nutrients along the way, then the only way one can be "better" than the other is if it loses less than the other. Therefore, the assumption must be that freezing vegetables is less harmful to their nutritional value than picking them early. If the opposite is true, or if they're the same, the argument falls apart.

C. Fresh vegetables are never sold immediately, but rather sit on shelves for a long time.

(C) is incorrect because whether this is true or not does not affect the author's claim. The argument is that fresh vegetables lose nutrients because they are picked early and have to ripen on the truck or in the store instead of on the vine. This is still a valid argument whether they are "sold immediately" or not.

D. People never freeze the fresh vegetables they buy at the grocery store.

(D) is incorrect because what people do with the vegetables after they are purchased is not part of the argument. The author is concerned with what happens to the nutritional value of vegetables between the time they are picked and the time they reach the consumer. His argument in favor of frozen vegetables over fresh ones remains valid regardless of what happens outside of this time frame.

E. All kinds of vegetables ripen at about the same rate in the same amount of time.

(E) is incorrect because the author does not attempt to distinguish the ripening characteristics of different vegetable varieties. Even if different kinds ripen faster or slower than others, the argument remains valid that more nutrition can be preserved by freezing ripe vegetables than by picking them early and letting them ripen on the way to the store.

Homework #19

2009-10-20T09:19:00.003-04:00

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument in Homework #18?

A. Overripe vegetables are more nutritious than underripe ones.

B. Vegetables destined for freezing and those destined for the grocery store are picked at the same time.

C. Fresh vegetables are refrigerated during transport to prevent them from spoiling.

D. Many people who live near farms can purchase vegetables directly from the farmers.

E. Tests have shown that fresh vegetables taste a lot better than frozen vegetables.

Homework #17 Answer

2009-10-20T08:20:00.005-04:00

Toy manufacturer: "The MegaBall rubber ball is very expensive to make. We should switch to a cheaper brand of rubber to make the MegaBall."

Marketing analyst: "But the MegaBall sells so well! People buy it because it bounces higher than any other ball. No other kind of rubber bounces that high. We should stick with what we know we can sell."

On which one of the following issues do the speakers above disagree?

A. Whether the rubber used to make the MegaBall is more expensive than other materials.

(A) is incorrect because this fact is not in dispute. The manufacturer makes this claim, and the analyst does not dispute it; rather, the analyst argues that they should continue using the more expensive rubber because its properties are the reason the ball sells so well. In other words, the manufacturer says it's expensive, but the analyst argues that it's worth the extra cost. Both speakers' arguments are compatible with the fact that the rubber is more expensive than other materials.

B. Whether the MegaBall sells as well as it is supposed to sell.

(B) is incorrect because it is also not in dispute. Nothing in the manufacturer's statement suggests he is concerned about sales of the MegaBall; his only concern is the cost of the rubber used to manufacture it. The analyst's statement might suggest that he thinks the manufacturer is unaware of this or has not taken it into consideration, but there is no evidence in the stimulus that this point is under dispute. The manufacturer could still argue for using a cheaper rubber even if he knows that the ball does sell well.

C. Whether the company should make the MegaBall from a different brand of rubber.

(C) is correct because it is the only matter in dispute. The manufacturer wants to switch to a cheaper brand of rubber, and the analyst's response suggests they should continue using the one they have because it's worth the extra cost. That's the only point of contention in the exchange.

D. Whether they should consider what customers want before they make important business decisions.

(D) is incorrect because it is not in dispute in the above exchange. Even though the analyst might be implying that the manufacturer has not considered this, just because he may think so does not make it true. Nothing in the manufacturer's statement suggests that he does not think customer preferences should be considered; the fact that he has a different priority does not mean that he thinks other factors should not be considered.

E. Whether other rubber materials bounce as high as the rubber they are currently using to make the MegaBall.

(E) is incorrect because the properties of the rubber are not in dispute. The only issue is whether the higher-bouncing rubber is worth the extra cost.

Homework #18

2009-10-19T12:08:00.002-04:00

Homework #16 Answer

2009-10-16T10:30:00.009-04:00

Harry became very frustrated with what a disorganized mess his baseball card collection had become. Sensing Harry's frustration, Harry's brother Archie suggested that Harry organize the cards in a display album, containing special pages to showcase his most valuable cards. Harry went to the store and then looked online for an album he could use. However, none of the albums he found had special showcase pages that were big enough to hold all of his cards. So he told Archie, "That was a stupid suggestion."

Which of the following assumptions has Harry made in dismissing Archie's recommendation?

A. Larger showcase display albums produced in the past were big enough to hold all of Harry's cards.

(A) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. Harry dismissed Archie's suggestion that a display album would help organize Harry's baseball card collection. Harry called it a "stupid suggestion," because he thought it wouldn't work. But (A) is not the assumption upon which that conclusion is based. Harry's frustration stemmed from the fact that the collection was messy and disorganized, not that it was too large to fit into a single display album. Therefore it doesn't matter whether larger albums produced in the past were big enough, so this is not the flaw in Harry's reasoning.

B. Albums without showcase pages are never as effective for organizing baseball cards as are albums that do have showcase pages.

(B) is incorrect because Harry would still be upset with Archie, albeit wrongly, even if this wasn't true. Whether the albums in question have showcase pages or not is not the issue. Harry thinks the albums can't neatly organize his collection because the showcase pages in a single album won't hold all of them; faulty reasoning, but not because of this.

C. Any album large enough to hold all of Harry's cards would contain enough special showcase pages to display all of his most valuable cards.

(C) is incorrect because it also does not represent the flaw in Harry's reasoning. Clearly he's upset because the albums' showcase pages are each too small to hold all of his cards, but whether a hypothetical large-enough album would contain adequate special showcase pages for his most valuable cards is not the point. Harry thinks the albums are no good because the pages are too small and thus won't hold all of the cards, but the issue is why he dismisses Archie's suggestion as "stupid." He has no reason to do so if the size of the collection and album were not the focus or purpose of the suggestion. Archie was suggesting a way to organize the cards, not hold them all.

D. Harry's baseball card collection would not be well-organized if it were displayed in more than one showcase album.

(D) is correct. Harry's problem is that the cards are messy and disorganized; Archie's suggestion is that he organize them in an album. Harry dismisses the suggestion because he can't find an album large enough to hold all of his cards, but the obvious possibility that he's ignoring is that he can use more than one album to organize them. This is the flaw in his reasoning; he assumes, wrongly, that he has to fit all of the cards into one album in order for them to be organized. If this is not the case, then there's no reason for him to denigrate and dismiss Archie's suggestion.

E. Harry's baseball card collection is a mess because he has more cards now than he did last year.

(E) is incorrect because, once again, the size of Harry's collection is not the issue.

Homework #17

2009-10-16T10:01:00.004-04:00

Homework #15 Answer

2009-10-16T08:48:00.006-04:00

A passenger vehicle is defined as any fully-enclosed four-wheeled vehicle with room for at least one other person besides the driver. A semi truck, though it does have enclosed room to transport one non-driving passenger, always has more than four wheels. A jeep, though it may have four wheels and enough room for a driver plus at least one passenger, is rarely fully enclosed. A postal van, though it may be enclosed and have four wheels, usually does not have room for any passengers other than the driver.

If all of the above statements are true, which one of the following MUST also be true?

A. If an automobile is neither a semi truck, nor a jeep, nor a postal van, then it is not a fully enclosed four-wheeled vehicle.

(A) is incorrect because it could obviously still be a passenger vehicle, which according to the stimulus is a fully-enclosed four-wheeled vehicle. Of course it could be something else, meaning it COULD be an open vehicle and/or one with more or fewer than four wheels, but it doesn't HAVE to be.

B. If an automobile is not a semi truck, or a jeep, or a postal van, then it must be a passenger vehicle.

(B) is incorrect because the stimulus leaves open the possibility that there are more types of automobiles besides the four that are described. We can reach this conclusion logically, regardless of our outside knowledge about automobiles, because there is no language in the stimulus that tells us an automobile MUST or CAN ONLY be one of the four types described.

C. If a jeep is fully enclosed with four wheels and room for non-driving passengers, then it is both a jeep and a passenger vehicle.

(C) is correct. The key to answering a question like this is being able to determine, and more importantly to distinguish, what MUST be, what COULD be, and what CANNOT be. All of the descriptions in the stimulus contain qualifiers that indicate whether the particular characteristic is ALWAYS true, USUALLY true, RARELY true, or NEVER true of that type of vehicle. If something is true "usually," "rarely," "sometimes," "often," "seldom," etc., that means it CAN be true but it doesn't HAVE to be true, and it can also be false but doesn't have to be false. The stimulus tells us that a jeep is "rarely fully enclosed," not that it is never fully enclosed, which means it CAN be fully enclosed. Since the question contemplates a fully-enclosed jeep, and since any fully-enclosed vehicle with four wheels and room for two or more people is a passenger vehicle, then such a vehicle would be both a jeep and a passenger vehicle. Even if the stimulus told us that a jeep was never fully enclosed, this would still be the correct answer because the answer itself contemplates a fully-enclosed jeep, and what such a vehicle would be if it did exist.

D. Postal vans are more like passenger vehicles than semi trucks are.

(D) is incorrect not because it is a matter of opinion, but because there are no objective, logical criteria for comparison, i.e., whether having the same number of wheels makes a vehicle "more like" another than if it had the same amount of passenger room. Postal vans are similar to passenger vehicles in that they tend to be enclosed and have four wheels, but they have no room for passengers. Semi trucks are like passenger vehicles in that they are enclosed and have room for passengers but they have more than four wheels. Each compared vehicle therefore shares two of the three stated characteristics with passenger vehicles, but we don't know which characteristic is more important, so it is impossible to say that either is definitively "more like" a passenger vehicle than the other.

E. Some postal vans may be considered to be jeeps.

(E) is incorrect because the descriptions of both jeeps and postal vans are so equivocal that even if the categories could overlap, it is also possible that they don't, i.e., that no postal vans are jeeps. The facts that jeeps are RARELY enclosed (which postal vans always are) and that postal vans USUALLY have no passenger room (which jeeps always do), suggest that it's unlikely that a postal van is also a jeep, but not impossible; still, we cannot conclude with any certainty that there must be postal vans out there that are also jeeps. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't; remember the question is what MUST be true, not what COULD be true. (Note also the use of the phrase "may be," as opposed to "can be" or "could be." As you know from elementary school, "may" implies permission, not possibility; i.e., that such vehicles DO exist, not that they CAN exist.)

Homework #16

2009-10-08T10:02:00.002-04:00

Homework #14 Answer

2009-10-07T10:02:00.006-04:00

Due to a rash of behavior problems among a particular group of high school students, the principal has canceled all school extracurricular activities for the next month. The organizers of a pep rally, which is scheduled to take place two weeks from now, have made the case that their event should be allowed. They have argued that the increase in school spirit brought about by the pep rally will bond everyone together, which in turn will result in fewer behavior problems in school in the future.

The organizers of the pep rally assume which one of the following in making their argument?

A. The principal did not intend to cancel the pep rally along with the other activities.

(A) is incorrect because the organizers' argument does not depend on this being true. Remember, an assumption question asks what MUST be true for the argument to hold water, not what COULD be true, what is most likely to be true, or what conclusion can be drawn from the stimulus. The question you need to ask is, if this is NOT true, is the argument still valid? The organizers are arguing that the principal, who has canceled all activities for the next month, should make an exception for their pep rally because it will help solve the behavior problem. Whether the principal intended to cancel the pep rally along with everything else, and we can probably assume she did, doesn't make their argument any more or less persuasive either way. If she intended to make an exception then the argument is moot and a waste of time; if she didn't, then the argument can still be made that she should, but the argument doesn't depend on this fact one way or the other.

B. The students with behavior problems will be participating in the pep rally.

(B) is correct. The only way the pep rally can have the desired effect on the behavior problems, the effect the organizers claim it will have, is if the students responsible for those problems will be participating in the pep rally. If not, then the argument falls apart, and the principal will have no reason to make the exception based on the organizers' claim.

C. No other activities besides the pep rally should be allowed to take place during the next month, unless it can be shown that such activities will "bond everyone together."

(C) is incorrect because the organizers are only concerned with their own event, the pep rally. They are not trying to prevent the principal from making exceptions for other events, nor are they trying to limit the basis of any exception made to the one they have proposed. In other words, the argument does not depend on what the standard should be for determining whether ANY exceptions should be made. Note also that this is expressed as an opinion (note the word "should") and therefore cannot be an assumption, because it cannot be either true or false.

D. A pep rally is the most effective type of extracurricular activity to deal with the problem of bad behavior in school.

(D) is incorrect because even if it is not true, the argument is still valid. Even if there are more effective ways of dealing with bad behavior, the organizers can still make their case that the pep rally will help in this regard, and the argument would not be any more or less persuasive. The statement in (D), if true, would certainly help, but it's not a necessary part of the argument; it's not an underlying assumption that MUST be true for the argument to be effective. This is an assumption question, not a support question.

E. The principal will allow other canceled events to take place once she sees the positive effect that the pep rally will have on the students.

(E) is a prediction, not an opinion, but it's still incorrect because the argument does not depend on it being true. The organizers are trying to get the principal to make an exception for their pep rally. Whether she will make more exceptions later once she sees the benefits of making this one is debatable, but whether she does so or not does not make the present argument any more or less persuasive, or more or less likely to succeed.

Homework #15

2009-10-07T08:48:00.004-04:00

Homework #13 Answer

2009-10-06T13:08:00.008-04:00

All fish live in water. All sharks live in water.

Which one of the following can be logically concluded, based SOLELY on the statements above?

A. All sharks are fish.

(A) is incorrect even though it is true, because one cannot conclude this based SOLELY on the two statements above. Our outside knowledge about the animal kingdom tells us that sharks are fish, but the stimulus only tells us that they all live in water. It also tells us that all fish live in water, but does not create a category of "fish" that includes "sharks" as an example within that category. Neither statement excludes the possibility that other creatures besides fish (and sharks) live in water, and the two statements taken together, without more, do not exclude the possibility that sharks are not fish.

This question is an example of a syllogism, an attempt to define categories of things and examples of things within those categories and/or excluded from those categories. For example: All poodles are dogs. Fifi is a poodle. Therefore, Fifi is a dog. However, although all poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles. If all poodles are dogs, and Fifi is a dog, that doesn't mean that Fifi is a poodle.

(A) is sort of a trick answer, because as mentioned above we all know that sharks are fish and can't not be fish. Choosing (A) is an example of reaching the "right" conclusion for the wrong reasons, by substituting intuition for logic.

B. All fish are sharks.

(B) is incorrect and untrue, but if you answered (A), then (B) would have to be true as well. The stimulus states that both "fish" and "sharks" live in water, but doesn't tell us which is a category and which is an example within that category. If the fact that both sets of creatures live in water means that one is a subset of the other, without more, how do we know which is which?

C. If it lives in water, it must be a fish.

(C) is incorrect because the stimulus does not tell us that only fish live in water, it tells us that all fish live in water. Difference. If we know it is a fish, we know it lives in water because they all live in water, meaning that (contrapositive) there is no fish that does not live in water. But again, the stimulus does not exclude the possibility of creatures that are not fish who do live in water. If all we know is that it lives in water, it could be a fish, it is probably a fish, but it could be something else as well.

D. If it is not a fish, it does not live in water.

(D) is also incorrect because the stimulus does not tell us that only fish live in water. Once again, the stimulus does not exclude the possibility that creatures other than fish (and sharks) live in water. If non-fish can live in water, then the fact that a creature is not a fish does not by itself tell us whether the creature lives in water, let alone prove that it does not.

E. None of the above.

(E) is correct.

Homework #14

2009-10-06T08:18:00.003-04:00

Homework #12 Answer

2009-10-05T20:38:00.003-04:00

The "KUVA" fabric, produced by American Synthetics, Inc., was once thought to be a miraculous invention because it was so strong and durable. However, industrial accidents over the past three years have proven that the material is highly flammable (i.e., it catches fire and burns easily). This discovery was very bad news for manufacturers who use the "KUVA" fabric in their products. The weaker fabrics they had been using before caused many of their products to fail; the "KUVA" fabric provided an excellent alternative. Now that they can't use the "KUVA" fabric anymore, manufacturers will have to eliminate all American Synthetics materials from their inventories.

Which of the following assumptions best justifies the author's conclusion?

A. Early tests showing that the "KUVA" fabric was safe now appear to have been incomplete.

(A) is incorrect. The author's conclusion is that manufacturers now have to eliminate all materials made by American Synthetics, not just KUVA, from their inventories. This is obviously an unwarranted conclusion unless all American Synthetics products are dangerous, but there's no evidence here that anything they make other than the KUVA fabric is dangerous. Whether the tests of the KUVA fabric were incomplete is irrelevant; the issue is whether the fact that the KUVA fabric is unsafe renders ALL American Synthetics products unsafe. It doesn't, unless they all contain the KUVA material.

To use an historical corollary, the Ford Pinto automobile of the 1970s was infamous for having a tendency to explode when hit in the rear. The fact that the Pinto was unsafe did not mean that ALL Ford vehicles were unsafe. If crash tests on the Pinto had turned out to have been incomplete, it might reflect poorly on Ford, but would not require all Ford owners to get rid of their cars, or for dealers to stop selling all Ford models.

B. There have been more industrial fires in plants that use the "KUVA" fabric than in those that don't.

(B) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. The issue in the author's conclusion is not the KUVA fabric, it's ALL American Synthetics fabrics. Again, the fact that KUVA is unsafe does not mean that all American Synthetics products are unsafe.

C. The "KUVA" fabric is not as strong or durable as originally believed.

(C) is incorrect because it is not only irrelevant but calls attention to the wrong property of the fabric. It's lack of strength or durability was not what made it unsafe; its flammability did that. Still, as mentioned repeatedly, KUVA itself is not the issue.

D. All materials made by American Synthetics contain some form of the "KUVA" fabric.

(D) is correct.

E. Manufacturers will probably be sued by people who have been injured in accidents caused by products containing the "KUVA" fabric.

(E) is incorrect even if it is probably true. Even if you argue that manufacturers would drop all American Synthetics products in retaliation for such suits, the cause would be too indirect to support the author's specific conclusion.

Homework #13

2009-10-05T09:58:00.003-04:00

All fish live in water. All sharks live in water.

Which one of the following can be logically concluded, based SOLELY on the statements above?

A. All sharks are fish.

B. All fish are sharks.

C. If it lives in water, it must be a fish.

D. If it is not a fish, it does not live in water.

E. None of the above.

Homework for Oct. 2-4 Weekend

2009-10-02T10:05:00.003-04:00

As instructed in class, read the passages in the assignment packet for the writing project, and answer the multiple choice questions.

In case you don't have the printed copy, click here to read it online. We're doing Part A, pp. 2-7.

If you want to get a head start on writing the essay, click here, here, here and/or here.

Homework #11 Answer

2009-10-01T08:07:00.012-04:00

Salesman: "The revolutionary new Shepherd's Gate Protection System represents the latest in sheep-tending technology! The built-in sensors recognize the scent of predators from miles around. When your flock is in danger of attack, the electronic gates surrounding the flock will quickly slam shut, keeping any unwanted animals away, and your flock safer than ever! Sure, the system is prone to false alarms, but you know what they say: Better safe than sorry!"

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the salesman's argument?

A. Sheep cannot be injured by the electronic gates when they quickly slam shut.

(A) is incorrect even though it probably helps the salesman's pitch; it is not as good an answer as (B). Although this might be a selling point, the sales pitch as stated in the stimulus suggests that the customer's main concern is protecting his sheep from predators, and that the customer might hesitate to buy the system because it might not work properly, that the gates might close when the shepherd doesn't want them to, not because his sheep might be injured by the gates when they close. If such danger exists, it exists whether the alarm is false or not, but the salesman never mentions it; he only mentions false alarms as a cause for concern. The customer is not likely to leave his sheep unprotected because of a risk that they might be injured by a security system.

B. Similar electronic protection systems are currently used to protect cattle from attack by predators.

(B) is the best answer. The sales pitch in the stimulus suggests that the salesman, after describing how the system works, wants to assuage customers' concerns that it may not always work properly because it is prone to false alarms. The fact that similar systems are currently being used in similar applications suggests that the system works well enough and is suitable for its purpose, which bears out the "better safe than sorry" cliché at the end. Unlike (A), this claim addresses the specific risk that the customer is concerned about, and the specific decision he needs to make: whether the system will protect his flock from predators.

C. Roughly half the time, when the gates close automatically, it's because of a false alarm.

(C) is incorrect because it does not support the salesman's argument that the system will work as advertised. The salesman is trying to minimize the problem of false alarms. If "roughly half" of the system's activations are caused by false alarms, that's a big problem. That would make the customer less likely to buy the system, not more.

D. Some sheep predators have been hunted almost to extinction.

(D) is incorrect because even if it is true, it's irrelevant. It has no impact on the quality of the salesman's pitch or whether the customer is likely to buy the system.

E. Flocks of sheep are rarely attacked by predators.

(E) is incorrect because if it were true, the buyer would not need a fancy high-tech security system, let alone one "prone to false alarms," to protect his sheep. This would make the customer less likely to buy the product, not more.

Homework #12

2009-10-01T08:07:00.008-04:00

Homework #10 Answer

2009-09-30T21:33:00.008-04:00

People who accuse the Governor of not caring about the automobile industry are just using that criticism to hide their own partisan politics. Naïve citizens, who believe those accusations, fail to realize that sometimes a politician may seem not to care about one particular interest group, when in fact he is trying to enact public policy that benefits many different people and many different interests.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the strongest support for what the author says in the first sentence of the passage?

A. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between not caring about one specific group's interests, and actually caring about broader concerns and general public interest.

(A) is incorrect because it makes an excuse for the people the author accuses of dishonesty in the first sentence, and the ones he calls "naïve" in the second sentence. The first sentence accuses the Governor's critics of being dishonest about their criticism, implying that they are motivated by "partisan politics" and not by any genuine concern about the Governor's treatment of the auto industry. The question asks for support for this claim. If it's hard to tell whether the Governor actually doesn't care about one particular interest or is trying to serve broader interests, that would undercut the argument that his critics are being dishonest. What the second sentence does is suggest that only an ignorant fool would believe that these critics are sincere, which makes the first sentence's meaning clear.

B. The Governor's harshest critics are members of automobile workers' unions, and politicians with strong ties to the automotive industry.

(B) is correct. Again, the first sentence accuses the Governor's critics of being dishonest and motivated by partisan politics. If those critics are complaining that the Governor doesn't care about the auto industry, but they themselves are connected to that industry, then the author is probably right that their motives are selfish and disingenuous.

C. Many people who think the Governor doesn't care about the automobile industry voted for him in the last election.

(C) is incorrect because it does not support the argument that the Governor's critics are being dishonest. It is neither dishonest nor hypocritical to vote for a politician and then criticize his performance in office. To the extent that the critics' votes in the last election might influence their present criticism of the Governor, it would be more likely that their criticism is dishonest if they did NOT vote for him than if they did.

D. The Governor is not a politician who talks about the difference between partisan politics and civic responsibility.

(D) is incorrect because whether the Governor himself "talks about" this distinction is irrelevant to the honesty of his critics. At issue is WHY those critics are claiming that the Governor does not care about the auto industry; whether they really believe that or not. This statement does not answer that question either way.

E. Sometimes a politician thinks he's trying to help the whole community, when, in reality, he just doesn't care about the concerns of one particular group.

(E) is incorrect because it is also not relevant to whether or not the Governor's critics are being honest about their criticism. This sounds like something the critics would say, but the question does not ask us to support the critics; it asks us to support the author. This might be the correct answer if we were being asked for a rebuttal.

Homework #11

2009-09-30T14:06:00.004-04:00

Homework #9 Answer

2009-09-29T14:33:00.015-04:00

All Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 read To Kill a Mockingbird. All Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class after 2006 read The Natural.

If a student read To Kill a Mockingbird but did not read The Natural, which one of the following MUST be TRUE?

(A) The student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.

(B) The student was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 and before 2006.

(A) and (B) are both wrong because the two rules stated in the stimulus apply only to Honor Roll students. The question stem does not tell us whether the student in question is an Honor Roll student or not. The stimulus tells us nothing about non-Honor Roll students, so there is nothing that we can say MUST be true about any student unless he is an Honor Roll student. Both (A) and (B) could be true, but the question is what must be true. The fact that the other three answer choices expressly refer to Honor Roll students should have been a hint that this was a necessary condition.

(C) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.

(C) is correct. This is the only one of the four choices that MUST be true. If the student was an Honor Roll student and did NOT read The Natural , then he cannot have been in Mr. Braiman's class after 2006, because if he was, he would have read The Natural. Therefore this student must have been in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007.

(D) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class before 2003.

(D) is incorrect because it can be true, but it can also be untrue based on the rules given in the stimulus. Nothing is mentioned in the stimulus regarding what Mr. Braiman's Honor Roll students read or did not read prior to 2003 (or 2007), so it is possible that the student in the question was an Honor Roll student before 2003 and did not read The Natural. However, it is also possible that an Honor Roll student in Mr. Braiman's class before 2003 did read The Natural. The fact that they all read it after 2006, which is the ONLY rule stated with respect to this title, does not mean or imply that none of them read it before 2007, let alone before 2003.

(E) If the student was an Honor Roll student, then the student was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002 and before 2007.

(E) is incorrect because the stimulus does not tell us whether or not any of Mr. Braiman's Honor Roll students read To Kill a Mockingbird before 2003. It only tells us that after 2002, they all read To Kill a Mockingbird, which does not mean that none of them read it before 2003. Therefore the fact that the student in question did read To Kill a Mockingbird, assuming he was an Honor Roll student, does not necessitate that he was in Mr. Braiman's class after 2002.

Many people answered this question wrong by either ignoring the limitation of the rules to Honor Roll students, ignoring the fact that the question does not specify whether the student in question is an Honor Roll student or not, or making one very important, but very mistaken, inference: That the Honor Roll students read To Kill a Mockingbird only after 2002 and not before 2003.

The rules in the stimulus say none of this. Nor can this be reasonably inferred from either of the rules stated in the stimulus. This is why it is important to read the stimulus carefully, and consider each of the choices carefully. All of the four wrong answer choices could be true, but could also be untrue; only (C) cannot be true if the key condition, being in Mr. Braiman's class before 2007, were changed.

Remember also to use the contrapositive. If all Honor Roll students AFTER 2003 read To Kill a Mockingbird, that means that no Honor Roll student after 2003 did not read To Kill A Mockingbird. If all Honor Roll students after 2006 read The Natural, that means that no Honor Roll student after 2006 did not read The Natural. But that's all it means. What neither rule implies is that no Honor Roll student read either title BEFORE the associated dates. The main mistake that most people made was to infer that To Kill a Mockingbird had to have been read between 2003 and 2006. Not true.

You must be careful not to read into the stimulus anything that it does not say. Pay attention to what it does say, and to any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it. Also pay attention to words like "all," "only," "always," "never," "none," etc. What do they require? (What must be true?) What do they rule out? (What cannot be true?) What do they allow? (What could be true?)

Here's another way to look at it:

RULE #1
WHO: all Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class
WHEN: after 2002 (2003-present)
WHAT: read To Kill a Mockingbird

RULE #2
WHO: all Honor Roll students in Mr. Braiman's class
WHEN: after 2006 (2007-present)
WHAT: read The Natural

QUESTION:
WHO: student
WHAT: read To Kill a Mockingbird; did not read The Natural

APPLICATION:
Under what circumstances would either rule be violated?
- Neither rule applies if the student is not an Honor Roll student. If the rule does not apply, it can't be violated.
- The rule only applies if the WHO is satisfied. The question tells us the WHAT. Therefore the key condition is the WHEN.
- Rule #1, if it applies, can only be violated if the student in question did not read To Kill a Mockingbird. The student in question did read To Kill a Mockingbird, so Rule #1 is not violated regardless of when he read it. Even if he was in the class before 2003, the fact that he read this book at all prevents him from violating Rule #1, because he could have read it at any time. The rule is only violated if the conditions cannot satisfy the rule. In other words, even if the student read To Kill a Mockingbird in 1998, it can still be true that all of Mr. Braiman's Honor Roll students after 2002 read it as well.
- Rule #2, if it applies, can only be violated if the student did not read The Natural. The student in question did not read The Natural, therefore the rule is violated if the other conditions are met. Since all of the Honor Roll students in the class after 2006 did read it, he cannot have been in the class after 2006 if he didn't read it, and thus must have been in the class before 2007.

Homework #10

2009-09-29T13:16:00.002-04:00

Homework #8 Answer

2009-09-29T08:52:00.005-04:00

It is possible for a panhandler to collect a considerable amount of money from passersby, if he can convince them that he is destitute and that begging is the only way for him to help himself. If, on the other hand, passersby get the impression that they are being conned (tricked), or that the panhandler is just being lazy, they will not give him anything at all.

Which one of the following statements can be most reliably concluded from the passage above?

A. Passersby often decide whether or not to give money to a panhandler based on their impression of him and his honesty.

(A) is correct. The argument is that whether or not a passerby will give money to a panhandler depends on whether the passerby believes that the panhandler is in real need, or is merely a con artist. The first sentence indicates that a panhandler can receive money "if he can convince" the passerby; and the second refers to whether a passerby "get[s] an impression" about the panhandler. The key is the passerby's subjective belief, not the panhandler's objective intent.

B. If someone begs for money when he does not really need to, people will not give him any money.

(B) is incorrect. As stated above, the key to the argument is the passerby's subjective belief, not the panhandler's objective intent. Even if the panhandler truly needs the money, he may not be able to convince the passerby of same. Conversely, he may be able to convince the passerby and receive money from him even if he is not in true need.

C. Most passersby would give a panhandler money if they thought he was not trying to con them.

(C) is probably true but is an incomplete statement of the argument. It might be the right answer if we were being asked to support the argument, but the question asks for a conclusion.

D. Most panhandlers are unwilling to work.

(D) is incorrect because it's probably an opinion, or at least an unfounded observation. Even if it were true it would not be an appropriate conclusion. The panhandler's individual situation, not to mention any broad generalizations about panhandlers as a group, are not relevant to the argument which depends on the passerby's impression of the individual panhandler.

E. People who give money to panhandlers are not influenced by how much change they have in their pockets when they decide how much money to give.

(E) is incorrect because it changes the subject; it adds a new and completely unrelated factor and thus attempts a logical fallacy. The argument tells us what passersby are influenced by, therefore the conclusion should do the same thing. It does not necessarily follow, in this or any other argument, that someone who is influenced by one thing must not be influenced by some other specific thing.

Homework #9

2009-09-25T13:57:00.002-04:00

Homework #8

2009-09-24T14:40:00.003-04:00

Homework #7 Answer

2009-09-23T16:00:00.007-04:00

Recent studies have indicated that a certain type of freshwater cod has more tumors than other species of fish in the Hudson River. Long before this phenomenon was recognized, significant progress had been made in clearing the river of chemicals and other kinds of pollution thought to promote tumor growth in fish.

Which one of the following conclusions can most reliably be drawn from the statements above?

A. There is no causal link between pollution and the tumors in the freshwater cod.

(A) is incorrect because it it precisely the opposite of what the author is implying. The author is claiming two things: (1) that the cod now have tumors; (2) that before the tumors were discovered, progress was made in cleaning up the river. Note that the stimulus tells us only that "progress had been made;" it does NOT tell us that the pollution had been eliminated entirely. Therefore, if the fish have tumors, it is reasonable to assume that there is still some pollution in the river, that the pollution caused the tumors, and that efforts to clean up that pollution didn't do any good.

B. Efforts to clear the Hudson of chemicals and other kinds of pollution have not been strong enough.

(B) is correct because it is the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from the two items of evidence cited above. The fish have tumors, despite the fact that they tried to clean up the river years ago before the tumors were discovered. The author is clearly implying that the tumors were caused by pollution. Note, once again, that the stimulus DOES NOT SAY that the pollution was COMPLETELY ELIMINATED. It only says that "progress had been made." The reasonable and obvious conclusion is that they did not do a good enough job cleaning up the river, because if the fish have tumors anyway then there must still be some pollution in the river. Whatever progress was made was not good enough.

C. A sudden change in the river environment has had a drastic effect on the freshwater cod.

(C) is incorrect because nothing in the stimulus leads to this conclusion. There is nothing "sudden" or "drastic" that can be inferred from the author's statements. The author is merely pointing out the existence of a condition and attempting to suggest its cause. Nothing in the stimulus suggests that the river "suddenly" became polluted, or that the tumors were caused by anything that "suddenly" changed.

D. No other fish besides the freshwater cod can be harmed by chemicals and other kinds of pollution.

(D) is incorrect because the distinction between the cod and other fish is not the author's point. There is nothing in the stimulus to indicate that he thinks other fish are immune to pollution. The stimulus states that the cod have "more tumors" than the other fish, not that the cod have tumors and the other fish do not.

E. The studies mentioned provide no evidence that the number of tumors in the freshwater cod is related to the amount of pollution in the river.

(E) is incorrect because it says essentially the same thing (A) does, except this time the statement is attributed to "the studies mentioned" instead of being claimed outright. This might be the correct answer if the question was which statement would weaken the argument, or which statement could be used to refute or rebut the argument, but that is not the question. The question asks for the most likely conclusion. A conclusion should be a statement of what the author seems to believe, i.e., where his statements logically lead. The stimulus cannot reasonably be read to suggest that the author believes that pollution was NOT the cause of the tumors. In addition, the statement in (E) as constructed simply does not work as a conclusion. It would not make sense, for example, to add the word "Therefore, ..." to the beginning of the sentence.

Homework for Sept. 23

2009-09-23T11:46:00.002-04:00

No written assignment tonight. Instead, I want everyone to read the answers and explanations for homeworks #1-6, and compare them to the answers and explanations you came up with.

Scroll down or use the following links:

Homework #1 Answer
Homework #2 Answer
Homework #3 Answer
Homework #4 Answer
Homework #5 Answer
Homework #6 Answer

Homework #6 Answer

2009-09-22T14:10:00.005-04:00

The moral outrage and anger, voiced by some segments of the public, at the students arrested recently while demonstrating at City Hall, is wrong. We should keep in mind that, more than 200 years ago, our forefathers dumped tea in Boston Harbor in defiance of the British.

Which one of the following would be the most effective response, for the author's opponents, to dispute the argument?

A. It is unpatriotic to demonstrate in front of City Hall.

(A) is incorrect because it is an opinion, and an inflammatory one at that. Whether or not a behavior is "patriotic" is largely a matter of opinion, and in this case it does not refute the argument. Even though political partisans say things like this all the time, a blanket statement of opinion is never a reasonable counter-argument. Why those people have condemned the protesters, or their opinion of the protesters, is no more relevant to this argument than why the protesters protested in the first place.

B. Students are too inexperienced to understand the consequences of demonstrations.

(B) is incorrect because it's also an opinion, and an exercise in excuse-making. Just who is "too inexperienced" and who is "experienced enough" to do anything is a matter of opinion. Further, claiming that young people who do the wrong thing should be forgiven because they can't understand the consequences is not logical or reasonable. It's an emotional plea for sympathy. In addition, the author is arguing that the outrage against the protesters is wrong; i.e., that they should be forgiven albeit for a different reason. One would assume that to refute the argument, one would have to argue that the outrage against the protest was proper, and at least imply that the protest itself was not.

C. In today's world, one's beliefs and conscience are rarely the reasons for one's actions.

(C) is incorrect because, like (B), it is an attempt to make an excuse for the protesters or justify the protest, which is the same thing the author is trying to do. Why the protesters were out protesting is irrelevant, as are the other people's reasons for denouncing the protesters. Having a "reason" to do the wrong thing does not make it any less wrong.

D. The American patriots who threw tea into Boston Harbor had some public support for their cause.

(D) is incorrect because the author is trying to justify this protest by implicitly comparing it to the Boston Tea Party. This response implies that the current protesters have no public support, but that fact cannot be ascertained from the stimulus. Regardless, the author is not using public support as the basis for his argument that the protesters should not be condemned for protesting.

E. Simply because some past demonstrations by citizens are considered justified, doesn't mean that all such acts are justified.

(E) is correct. The author's argument is that those who have denounced the protesters are wrong, because the 18th-century Boston Tea Party has been accepted as legitimate and celebrated throughout history as an heroic act of defiance. The obvious weakness in the argument is that not all protests are created equal. Obviously, just because one protest that took place a very long time ago, under very different social conditions, has been accepted and celebrated does not mean that EVERY protest is legitimate or worth celebrating.

Homework #7

2009-09-22T09:41:00.005-04:00

Homework #5 Answer

2009-09-22T08:32:00.001-04:00

When we returned home from our six month vacation abroad, we found several drinking glasses shattered in place on the kitchen shelf. This can only happen during a sonic boom or when there is an earthquake. This must have been the loud noise that we heard not long after we drove off to the airport on the night we left for our vacation. Since there was no report on the car radio that night about earthquakes in the area, which always get a lot of attention, the glasses must have been shattered by a sonic boom, which is so common that it's never reported.

The speaker's conclusion about the "loud noise" assumes which of the following?

A. It is easy to tell the difference between glass shattered by an earthquake and glass shattered by a sonic boom.

(A) is incorrect. The author's conclusion is that the "loud noise" they heard must have been a sonic boom, based on three pieces of evidence: (1) the glasses were found shattered, which can only happen as a result of either an earthquake or a sonic boom; (2) they heard the "loud noise" on the night they left, and (3) there was no report of an earthquake on the news that night. What is missing is any definitive proof that this particular "loud noise" in fact caused the glasses to break, not whether it is easy to tell whether they broke as a result of one cause or the other. The author assumes the noise was a sonic boom because he also assumes that it broke the glasses, that it couldn't have been an earthquake because no earthquake was reported, and there is nothing besides a sonic boom or earthquake that could have broken the glasses.

B. A sonic boom always causes more damage in the house than an earthquake does.

(B) is incorrect. The stimulus provides no evidence of "more damage in the house" besides the broken glasses. Only the three items of evidence mentioned above are presented as evidence. Even if earthquakes cause more damage than sonic booms, the latter could still have shattered the glasses in this case. Further, the argument claims the cause of the "loud noise," not cause of the shattered glasses.

C. The drinking glasses on the shelf were shattered because they were not safely protected.

(C) is incorrect. The issue is not what could have prevented the glasses from shattering; the issue is whether the "loud noise" was an earthquake or a sonic boom (or perhaps something else entirely). Whether the glasses could have been protected is irrelevant to the question of which natural phenomenon occurred that caused them to break.

D. No earthquake has occurred since the night the family left on their vacation.

(D) is correct. The argument is that the "loud noise" had to have been a sonic boom and cannot have been anything else. The fact that the glasses were found broken (which could have had one of only two causes), the fact that they heard the "loud noise" on the night they left, and the fact that no earthquakes were reported that night, led the author to conclude that the noise must have been a sonic boom. However, the author is ignoring what should be an obvious alternative possibility: that some other event that occurred while they were away, not the "loud noise" they heard the night they left, broke the glasses. If the glasses could have been shattered by another event subsequent to the "loud noise," then the fact that they were shattered alone cannot be taken as evidence that the "loud noise" had to have been either a sonic boom or an earthquake. The "loud noise" could have been anything if it was not the event that shattered the glasses. The fact that no earthquake was reported on the night of the "loud noise" tells us that it was probably not an earthquake, but unless it can be shown that the same "loud noise" shattered the glasses, the author cannot conclude that it must have been a sonic boom.

E. Every time there is an earthquake in the area, some of the kitchen glassware will be shattered.

(E) is incorrect even if it is probably true. The author is not basing his conclusion, that the noise was a sonic boom, on this fact. Even if it's possible for all of the kitchen glassware to survive an earthquake, this would not undermine the author's conclusion that the "loud noise" was a sonic boom.

Homework #6

2009-09-21T15:54:00.001-04:00

Homework #4 Answer

2009-09-21T08:50:00.001-04:00

Imagine that I come into your living room and find you reading a book that I think is really offensive. Imagine that I get so upset about it that I steal the book, then burn it or rip out the pages that I don't like. Then imagine that when you file a complaint, the police and the courts tell you that there's nothing wrong with what I did. This may seem absurd, but what if instead of your living room we were talking about a school or a public library, and instead of me it was one of those "moral values" organizations? This is a situation that is eating away at the very roots of our constitutional system -- the banning of so-called "offensive" books from our library collections.

Which one of the following describes the principal weakness in the author's analogy?

(A) Burning or ripping up a book is not the same as banning a book.

(A) is incorrect because it focuses on the wrong part of the analogy. An analogy is a claim that one situation is the equivalent of another, made to illustrate an important principle. Specifically, the argument is that organizations trying to ban books from public schools and libraries is the same as, or just as bad as, someone coming into your private living room, snatching your book out of your hand and destroying it. The author seems to believe that one person or group of people should not be telling others what they should or should not be allowed to read, but the main argument is the analogy itself. To weaken the analogy, we must find an important, meaningful difference between the two situations. The fact that physically destroying a book is not the same as preventing people from getting it does not weaken the argument, because either method is meant to prevent people from reading it. It does not undermine the principle behind the analogy. Therefore, this is not a meaningful difference.

(B) The police and courts do not condone the theft of personal property.

(B) is incorrect even though it is true. Indeed, all five of the answer choices here are indisputably true. Again, the key to any analogy is the implicit claim of equivalency. To weaken an analogy, one must show that the equivalency is false; that one situation is not the same as the other in a way that undermines the author's reason for making the analogy. Of course stealing is illegal; the author is claiming that banning books is the same as stealing and destroying them. Which it isn't, but not for this reason.

(C) Schools and libraries, unlike the reader's living room, are public institutions.

(C) is correct. This is a meaningful difference between the two situations that undermines the author's argument. Banning books from public institutions such as schools and libraries is NOT the same as stealing and destroying them once they are in private hands. Because schools and libraries are public institutions, everyone is entitled to have a say in what books they carry and make available to the public. This is not to say that opponents of books are entitled to get them banned, but they do have a right to complain. They do not, however, have the right to complain about what any private individual reads in his own home, let alone take corrective action against that person. Note also that the analogy only refers to public schools and libraries, not bookstores, which are privately owned and operated. There is a world of difference between public and private interests. If it's public, the organization has a right to do something about it; if it's private, they have no such right.

(D) Books that may be suitable for adults may not be suitable for children.

(D) is incorrect even though it is true. It does not undermine the equivalency between banning books from public institutions and taking books from private individuals.

(E) The Constitution does not clearly define what makes a book "offensive" in the eyes of the law.

(E) is also true, and also incorrect. The issue is not what is offensive and what isn't. The issue is under what circumstances, and by what means, does a person or organization have the right to oppose "offensive" books.

Take-Home Quiz answers and explanations

2009-09-21T08:42:00.002-04:00

The take-home quiz essentially tests three things:

1. Your understanding and appreciation of your obligations with respect to school;
2. Your overall maturity and sense of personal responsibility; and
3. Your ability to distinguish, where distinctions exist, what is reasonable and proper from what you personally want.

For most of the questions, the correct answer should have been obvious. Any not-so-obvious answers could be found on pages 5-8 of the English Handbook, which I advised everyone to read before taking the quiz.

Many of the questions address the issue of whether you should accept responsibility for the choices you make, or be accommodated, forgiven, or given another chance when those choices lead to an undesirable outcome. To put it another way, whether it is better to do the right thing in the first place, or try to avoid the unpleasant consequences after the fact. In essentially every case, the former is the correct answer.

Some of the other questions deal with the issue of whether a situation is "not your fault," and what should happen as a result. In most cases, the correct answer does not take fault into account. What this means is not that you are always necessarily at fault, but that it often doesn't matter whether you are at fault or not. In other words, in such situations the fact that you are not at fault is less important than other facts or considerations.

If you answered a substantial number of these questions wrong, you need to seriously reexamine your approach to school (and to life in general as well), and adjust your attitude to give yourself a greater chance at success.

ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS:

(d) is correct. The late bell marks the beginning of class. Each class period is 47 or 48 minutes long, and all of those minutes are to be devoted to work. You have four minutes, plenty of time, to get from one class to another, and that is all you should be doing during passing. (a) is therefore incorrect, as is (b). (c) is not as good an answer as (d). (e) might be understandable if you are in elementary school, but by now you should be mature enough to do what is right without being told. (f) is childish and self-indulgent. (g) is wrong because no room passes may be issued in the first ten minutes of class, a school-wide rule that you should already know.

(c) is correct. Being “late” means arriving after a specified point in time, nothing more. If you have an “excuse” for being late, or if it's "not your fault," that does not magically alter the space-time continuum and make it so you actually arrived on time. (a) and (b) are therefore incorrect. Lateness is also not a matter of degree; you either arrive before the bell or after. How long after doesn't matter. (d) is therefore wrong. (e) is wrong because your intentions are irrelevant. Lateness is discussed on page 5 of the English Handbook.

(k) is correct. As mentioned above, excuses, reasons, intentions and/or fault are irrelevant to the question of what time you arrived to class. Nothing can change that essential fact. The question asks under what circumstances you are not late; it does not ask whether or not you are at fault. (a) through (f) are therefore wrong. (g) and (h) are wrong because you are required to be in the classroom when class begins; if you (meaning your person, not your belongings) are not in the room when the bell rings, you are either late or absent.

(d) is correct because it is the most efficient, least disruptive way of dealing with this situation. (a) and (b) are wrong because either of these will actually take longer and be more disruptive to me and the rest of the class. It will take less time to simply go where you need to go and take care of the issue, than it will to come to my class first, then go to the other location and come back. In addition, I would rather you come in late than disrupt the class by immediately asking to leave, or put me in a position of having to say no because there are no room passes in the first ten minutes. Your being late is a significantly lesser disruption and will have a lesser impact on your grade. (c) is wrong because, as discussed above, your reason for being late is irrelevant so there’s no need to tell me what it is.

NOTE ALSO: If you have left an item behind in another classroom, you will not be permitted to leave class to retrieve it. If you value your property, you must be careful with it and be responsible for it. Consequently, you must bear the risk of anything happening to the property if you carelessly leave it somewhere.

(c) is correct. Again, late means late; your reasons, intentions and whether or not you are at fault are irrelevant, therefore (a) is wrong. (b) and (d) are childish and self-indulgent.

(a) is correct. The other choices are childish and self-indulgent.

(f) is correct; one point for either (d) or (e). The rule of thumb in class is: “Do today’s work first.” The most reasonable course of action is to do what everyone else is doing, so that you will be able to follow the discussion and everyone will be on the same task while in the classroom. It is your responsibility to make up whatever work you miss, but you may not do it in class when there is something else that you’re supposed to be doing, so (c) is wrong. (a) and (b) are simply false. You cannot expect to be given credit for work you have not done, regardless of why you have not done it.

(b) is correct. The fact that you have to ask permission necessarily means that you don’t get it automatically. (a) is therefore wrong. (c) is wrong because you should have taken this into consideration when you chose not to do your work. (d) is wrong because I would consider such a promise to be worthless.

(d) is correct. (a), (b) and (e) are false. (c), (f) and (g) are just plain stupid. (h) is a despicable thing to do, and would be unforgivable should you ever do it.

(e) is correct. The other choices are childish and self-indulgent. (f) may be understandable in some circumstances, but (e) is the better answer.

(e) is correct; one point for either (a) or (b). The room pass is a courtesy, not a right. You may exceed the limits if you choose to do so, but there may be consequences if it becomes a habit and you need to accept that. (c) and (d) are childish and self-indulgent.

(d) is correct. See page 5 of the English Handbook. The points that represent your grade come from the work you have done. You do the work, you get points for it; the better the work, the more points you get. You don’t get points simply for being on my roster. You have to earn them. (a) is wrong because that would prevent you from learning, blind you to the risks of not doing your work, and give you all kinds of other irrational ideas. The same applies to (b), and (c) makes even less sense. (e) is irrelevant and (f) is absurd; you don't get to set your own standards.

(c) is correct. An A represents exceptional work, best in the class; a B, good work, meaning above average. A C means the work is average; a D means the work is poor but enough to meet the minimum requirement. The notebook rubric on page 6 of the English Handbook indicates that a "Fair" notebook receives a C, and describes it. In addition, the English Regents scoring described on page 7 of the handbook indicates that "average high school-level writing" receives a C. It is not reasonable to expect a high grade for work that is merely adequate or of average quality, or for doing "just enough to pass." Only the best work will receive an A; otherwise, an A doesn’t mean anything and is not an achievement. Your work has to be better than average if you want a better-than-average grade.

(e) is correct. The English Handbook indicates on page 8 that the notebook receives a zero (no credit) if it only contains quotations and notes copied from the board. You get no credit for copying quotes and instructions off the board. Copying things off the board is a fifth-grade skill; we are in high school now. What is important is that you do what you are asked and required to do. You are neither asked nor required to copy quotes, instructions or questions off the board. If your notebook contains no responses, no original writing, nothing that you produced yourself, then you did not do the work you were asked and required to do. None of the other choices therefore makes any sense.

(o) is correct. The other choices are childish and self-indulgent.

(h) is correct. (a) through (f) are childish and self-indulgent. (g) is wrong because it is a declaration of helplessness, not an actual question that indicates some thought and effort on your part. Therefore (h) is the better answer.

(k) is correct. The other choices are childish and self-indulgent.

(h) is correct. (a) is wrong because I do not believe in “extra credit;” you do the work you are assigned, period. The English Handbook indicates on page 5 that there is no “extra credit.” The other choices are childish and self-indulgent. If you choose not to do your work, you should be prepared to accept the consequences of that choice. Do not expect to have that choice un-done for you later. Any time you choose not to do your work, you run the risk of failing the class. You need to consider that when you make your decisions, every single day.

(h) is correct. The other choices are childish and self-indulgent. See #18, supra.

(a) is correct. An F means you did something, but that something was less than the minimum requirement. You get 18 points out of 40. A zero means you did nothing, and get nothing; 0 out of 40. All of this is on page 5 of the English Handbook. It is absurd to think that nothing is better than something, let alone that there’s no difference between them. Since one, and only one, of (a), (b) and (c) must be true, all of the other choices are eliminated.

Homework reminder

2009-09-19T12:52:00.002-04:00

Any homework submitted with no name on it, or with spiral-notebook debris on the edge of the page, will be discarded.

Homework #5

2009-09-18T15:21:00.003-04:00

Homework #3 Answer

2009-09-18T13:58:00.004-04:00

Detective-adventure series and other action programming on prime-time TV have been criticized for inciting some viewers, especially teenage boys, to commit acts of violence. The most carefully engineered studies have not, however, supported this assumption. Rather, it seems likely that someone who is frustrated and resentful, and therefore prone to violence, is drawn to the kind of programs that show characters who release their frustration in acts of violence.

Which one of the following would provide the most logical concluding sentence for the paragraph above?

A. In fact, action programming probably helps a frustrated viewer release his hostility without resorting to violence.

(A) is incorrect because the author makes no such claim, nor can this conclusion reasonably be drawn from any claim the author does make. The argument is that violence on television does not cause viewers to act violently; rather, people who are already prone to violence tend to watch, and like, violent shows. It's hard to imagine how anyone, let alone a frustrated and potentially violent person, could "release his hostility" by simply watching television.

B. Moreover, there are studies that indicate that teenage boys are more likely than other viewers to believe that the world shown in action programming is realistic.

(B) is incorrect. The stimulus' reference to "teenage boys" is a red herring; it has no effect on the argument at all. The argument would still be the same if the reference were taken out. Nor does the argument make or imply any connection between the perceived realism of TV shows and the violent behavior of viewers.

C. In other words, an unusual interest in action programming may be an indication of a violence-prone personality, rather than an incitement to violence.

(C) is correct. This is a restatement of the argument, which functions well as the concluding sentence of the paragraph. The argument criticizes the oft-stated notion that violent TV shows cause violent behavior, by suggesting that essentially the opposite is true. In other words, violent TV does not cause violent behavior, but violent people tend to watch violent TV.

D. Be that as it may, action programming continues to grow in popularity with the American TV audience.

(D) is incorrect because it changes the subject. This might be a good topic sentence for the next paragraph, but it doesn't work as a concluding sentence for the given paragraph. The argument is concerned about the relationship between violent TV shows and violent behavior. Overall popularity is a separate argument.

E. Therefore, the reasonable observer of the American scene will conclude that action programming should be banned from prime-time TV.

(E) is incorrect because it does not follow logically from the author's argument. If action shows don't cause violent behavior, there's no need to ban them from prime-time TV.

Homework #2 Answer

2009-09-18T09:56:00.003-04:00

Critics of current TV programs expect that FCC (government) restrictions on popular shows, like children's adventure cartoons and R-rated movies, would force the TV stations to put on more responsible programming, like public-affairs shows and live productions of classical drama. But would they really want the government to get involved in broadcasting if they knew a little more about how the marketplace really works? Restrictions like this would result in milder, but still mindless, offerings. There would be more situation-comedies (sit-coms) about bewildered housewives, more coverage of small-town minor-league sports, and more talk shows about the private lives of so-called "celebrities."

The author of the passage assumes that

A. current TV programming is not irresponsible.

(A) is incorrect because the argument takes no position on whether current TV programming is "responsible" or not. The author is merely suggesting that a plan to make such programming "more responsible" would not have the desired effect. If anything, the author is implying that current programming is irresponsible, otherwise it would not need to be regulated.

B. FCC restrictions of TV shows will not necessarily be easy to enforce.

(B) is incorrect because the argument addresses regulation, not enforcement. In other words, the argument is concerned with what the rules are that might be made and what the effect of those rules might be, not whether it would be easy for the FCC to make sure those rules were followed.

C. those who want to restrict certain popular TV shows will not like their popular replacements.

(C) is correct. The argument is that if the FCC tries to encourage "more responsible" programming by restricting certain kinds of shows, the TV networks would not put on the kinds of shows the critics have in mind. They would keep putting on "mindless" shows like sit-coms and talk shows, just milder versions of them. More importantly, the author assumes that the critics would want the sort of high-minded cultural fare he suggests, and they wouldn't get it, which means they wouldn't like the new shows any more than the old ones.

D. the FCC should have no control over the TV industry, which is likely to serve the public better if it is not regulated.

(D) is incorrect because it is an opinion, and an opinion cannot be the underlying assumption of an argument. While it may be inferred that the author shares this opinion, the fact remains that an assumption is something that must be TRUE in order for the argument to be valid. An opinion cannot be true (or false).

E. The marketplace is the true test of whether or not a new program idea is worthwhile.

(E) is incorrect because it is also an opinion. The key phrase is "true test." The implication is that there is another test being proposed and this one is better, because it's "true." While it may, once again, be inferred that the author holds this opinion, the argument is not really about the superiority of the marketplace over government regulation. The reference to the marketplace in the stimulus is in the form of a rhetorical question, and a rhetorical question cannot be the argument.

Homework #4

2009-09-17T15:23:00.004-04:00

Homework #1 Answer

2009-09-17T15:14:00.005-04:00

"Litigiousness" is the habit of taking conflicts and disputes to court, when they could probably be settled fairly some other way. According to experts, the United States is rapidly becoming the most litigious country in the world. Disputes that could easily have been settled out of court in any number of ways, including binding arbitration, now clog the average court calendar in all parts of the nation.

Which of the following statements, if true, BEST supports the argument?

A. An increasing number of court cases involve disputes between employees and their companies, which can be handled by government administrative boards.

(A) is correct. The argument is that the United States is becoming the most litigious country in the world, with the implication that litigiousness is not a good thing. The argument defines litigiousness as a tendency to take a dispute to court when it would be better to settle it elsewhere. The content of (A) is an example of one kind of dispute that is often taken to court that could be settled elsewhere, i.e., by an administrative board. (A) therefore supports the argument.

B. The greater the number of unnecessary court cases in a society, the larger the number of trial lawyers who are gainfully employed.

(B) is incorrect because the argument takes no position on the employment of trial lawyers. Whether the employment of trial lawyers is a desirable or undesirable result would depend entirely on the reader's opinion; since there's nothing in the stimulus to suggest that this is relevant, it does not support the argument.

C. Litigiousness is not necessarily a bad thing, since it encourages shy people to defend their rights.

(C) is incorrect because the author does not seem to be fond of litigiousness. The goal appears to be to avoid taking matters to court unnecessarily. To suggest, as (C) does, that litigiousness can actually be a good thing, regardless of the reason, undermines the argument.

D. Studies of litigiousness may not have taken into account the fact that most people don't understand how the courts work.

(D) is incorrect because the author makes no reference to "studies;" he does not attempt to use empirical evidence to support his argument. Still, even if it were true that people do not understand how the courts work, that does not change the fact that a great many disputes are taken to court unnecessarily. Why a litigant goes to court instead of using an alternative method of dispute resolution is irrelevant. "How the courts work" does not become relevant until after the dispute is taken to court.

E. The litigiousness of city dwellers can be explained by their feelings of isolation and loneliness in a hostile environment.

(E) is incorrect because, again, telling us why people take their disputes to court does not change the fact that many of them do so unnecessarily. The argument is only that we are becoming a litigious country, which means we take a lot of disputes to court that could, and should, be settled in other ways.

Homework #3

2009-09-16T13:27:00.003-04:00

Wednesday's questions and sample explanations - #10

2009-09-16T13:17:00.002-04:00

10. When I was in high school, the teachers were always warning us against ever using drugs. Yet many of the students freely admitted in later years that they had used drugs regularly in high school. I can only draw the unfortunate conclusion from this that my teachers’ warnings were in vain.

Which one of the following claims, if true, would be most useful in refuting the argument of the passage above?

Many of the students who used drugs were aware of the dangers involved because of the teachers’ warnings.
Some students use drugs for legitimate reasons.
The school required the teachers to warn their students against drug use.
Some of the author’s fellow students were persuaded not to use drugs by their teachers’ warnings.
Drug use invariably results in bad study habits, poor class attendance and low grades.

(D) is correct. This is a classic example of a logical fallacy; it's called "inductive reasoning." The argument suggests that because some people did not take the teachers' advice, then that advice was given "in vain," i.e., that the advice did not do any good at all and might as well have not been given at all. In other words, because it didn't affect everyone, that means it didn't affect anyone. Obviously, that is not logical. If it is true that some of the students heeded the teacher's warnings, then those warnings were not given in vain.

(A) is incorrect even though it could weaken the argument. It suggests that the students learned something but did not act on it, but the purpose of the advice was that they act on it and refrain from using drugs. Therefore it is not the most useful fact with which to refute the argument.

(B) is incorrect because it's basically false (there are no "legitimate reasons" to use drugs), and more importantly because the argument is not concerned with why the students used drugs.

(C) is incorrect because the argument is also not concerned with why the teachers gave the students the advice.

(E) is incorrect even though it is probably true for the most part. The argument is not concerned with the abstract, hypothetical dangers of drug use.

Wednesday's questions and sample explanations - #9

2009-09-16T13:11:00.002-04:00

9. The mural in the executive dining room was painted more than 40 years ago. Since then, its exposure to extremes of heat and humidity has caused some of the once-vivid colors to fade. Fortunately, the painter’s notes included precise instructions for mixing pigments. Using these instructions and his leftover paints, skilled preservationists will be able to restore the mural to its original colors.

The conclusion logically depends on which one of the following assumptions?

The preservationists will be able to duplicate the muralist’s technique.
The wide variations in temperature and humidity typical of food-service areas make the executive dining room a poor location for a mural.
The artist foresaw that the colors would fade with time.
The paints left over from the mural’s creation have not themselves changed color.
At the time the mural was painted, temperature- and humidity-control technology was insufficient to prevent it from fading.

(D) is correct. This is a very narrowly-defined, precise argument: If the preservationists use the paints and instructions that the artist left behind, they can reproduce the painting's original colors. This cannot happen if the paints themselves have changed color since the artist used them originally. If the paints have changed color, then the colors they produce will be different.

(A) is incorrect because the argument is limited to the colors, not the painting's overall appearance. The goal is simply to restore the colors, not the painting's appearance. (A) might be correct if the artisans were trying to copy or reproduce the entire painting. But that is not the argument.

(B) is incorrect because, while it is probably true, it's irrelevant to the argument. The fact that this is not a good place to hang a painting has no effect on whether the original colors can be restored using the original paints and artist's instructions.

(C) is incorrect even though it might be a valid inference. It could be inferred that if the artist had not anticipated that the colors would fade, he would not have left the paints and instructions behind. However, we have not been asked for an inference. In addition, and more importantly, the stimulus tells us that he DID leave the paints and instructions behind. It doesn't matter why he did it, or whether he would have done it under different circumstances. He did it.

(E) is incorrect because, like (B), it is probably true but irrelevant to the argument. Whether the fading could have been prevented in the past has no effect on whether the colors can be restored now.

Wednesday's questions and sample explanations - #8

2009-09-16T12:57:00.002-04:00

8. The proposal to reduce grain prices by having the government set and control the price of grain would __________. Artificially stabilized pricing drains the economy, encourages inefficient production, and discourages individual initiative. If we let the forces of the free market operate, we give the more efficient producers the advantage they deserve.

Which one of the following most logically fills the blank of the passage above?

reward producers who are not responding adequately to market forces
actually have the opposite effect of increasing grain prices
strike a necessary balance between government intervention and a free market economy
make grain available to those who cannot afford to eat well
allow individual efforts to influence the operation of the free market

(A) is correct. The question asks us to determine what the author's argument is. Therefore it is an inference question. The opening sentence, with the blank at the end, presents us with a proposal to accomplish a certain goal (lowering grain prices) by doing a particular thing (having the government set the price). The presence of the blank after the word "would" implies that the blank will contain the author's suggestion of what the result would be if we try to solve that problem by doing that thing. The rest of the stimulus suggests that he is against it because he believes in free-market principles, specifically the idea that those who succeed do so because they are efficient at producing their products. (A) is therefore the best answer because it reflects the free-market conservative concern that government intervention will help those who don't deserve to succeed.

(B) is incorrect even though we often hear claims that proposals for government action will have the exact opposite effect of what is intended. The author in this case is less concerned with grain prices than he is with free-market philosophy. He doesn't care if prices go up; he wants to make sure that only those who deserve an advantage, have an advantage.

(C) is incorrect even though it seems like a reasonable thing to hope for. This is not to say that the author's argument is unreasonable. However, the author is clearly against the proposal, and the question asks us why he is against it, i.e., what he thinks will happen if we try it. What he ultimately wants instead is not part of the question.

(D) is incorrect because it is probably an intended outcome of the proposal. If the author is against the proposal, he would not claim that it will have a desirable outcome.

(E) is incorrect because it states what the author wants. The argument clearly suggests that he thinks the opposite will happen.

Homework #2

2009-09-15T13:12:00.004-04:00

Homework Tips

2009-09-15T11:24:00.005-04:00

Each homework is worth a maximum of 4 points. 2 points for a correct answer, and either zero (minimal or no explanation), 1 (illogical or incomplete explanation) or 2 (logical, clear explanation) points for your explanation.

When writing your explanation, discuss the correct answer first. Then discuss each incorrect answer.

When discussing the correct answer, first state what the argument is. Then discuss how the content of the answer choice relates to the argument. You need to understand the argument before you can answer the question.

When discussing the incorrect answers, you do not need to restate the argument, but you do need to refer to it in explaining why the answer choice is wrong.

Explanations should contain more than simply a conclusory statement about the answer choice. You must explain why it is right or wrong in relation to the original argument.

You don't have to copy the question. It's OK to print it out off the computer or copy-and-paste it into your word processor, but don't waste time writing it by hand or typing it yourself.

Read the sample explanations for the questions we discussed in class, which are here on the blog, to get an idea of what your explanation should contain.

Most of the time, if it doesn't matter whether the answer choice is true or not, it's probably the wrong answer. But you need to understand what the argument is before you can determine this. And, don't forget, you need to read the question stem first so you know what kind of question it is.

Make sure your name is on the homework and it is labeled at the top, "Homework #_".

Remember that in the stimulus, the author is always trying to convince you of something. Distinguish the subject matter from the argument.